^'% 






"%. v* 












J* 













O X 












V 



% 



























.# 








♦, -V 



%. v** 












WV ^ 



^ ^ 



'\ 







.1*° - 












<. - 






.(V . ' 






.'- 









AV V - J .r, 





<* v 


•V 














OCT 



^ V 



,0 0. 


















# 












oo 1 



^ ^ 




\ 0o „. 













0' 



























* ,-> 
























DISCOURSES 



ON 



KOIII 11 TIE REFORMATIO^ 



Rev. E. GREENWALD, D. D. 

Pastor of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of the 
Holy Trinity, Lancaster, Pa. 



Lancaster, Pa. 

John Baer's Sons, Printers. 

1880. 



PREFACE. 



The occasion which led to the preparation and delivery oj 
these Discourses, was the advent of a Jesuit Missionary, and 
the holding of a Jesuit "Mission" in Lancaster in the month of 
September 1879, at which the doctrines and character of Luther 
and the Reformation were severely criticised. The "Mission" 
was conducted with unusual eloquence and skill. It awakened 
a considerable spirit of inquiry in the community. Large au- 
diences, even of Protestants, thronged to hear, and a few were 
misled by the ingenious arguments employed, to adopt the sen- 
timents advocated. It seemed that the attack upon the Luth- 
eran Reformation, Protestant doctrines, and the Protestant 
Churches, should not be permitted to pass unnoticed. A course 
of Sunday Evening Sermons was, therefore, inaugurated, and 
for seven Sundays, beginning October bth, the large Church of 
the Holy Trinity was crowded each evening with a most atten- 
tive and deeply interested audience. The Vestry of the Churchy 
as well as many others, have earnestly advised the publication 
of the Sermons. They are, therefore, submitted to the public 
in the hope that they may serve to promote in some degree, the 
cause of Evangelical truth, and with the fervent prayer that the 
blessing of our dear Lord Jesus Christ may accompany them. 

E. O. 

Lancaster, Pa., November 17, i8?g. 
1* 



DISCOURSE I. 



ST. PAUL'S CHURCH OF ROME. 

Romans i : 7. — To all that be in Rome. 

HAVE the readers of the New Testament ever considered the 
bearing which the fact referred to in the text that St. Paul 
wrote this Epistle to the Church at Rome, has upon the claim 
of the Papacy that St. Peter was its Bishop, and Pope? The only 
Epistle to the Romans which the Word of God contains, was 
written, not by St. Peter, but by St. Paul. Let us look at some 
facts of great significance. We wish to make the text the basis 
of some remarks upon the relation of St. Peter and St. Paul to 
the Church at Rome. 

* First: We do not certainly know that St. Peter ever was at 
Rome at all. We do know that St. Paul was there. No one 
doubts St. Paul's having been at Rome. There are great doubts 
whether St. Peter ever was there. Romanists claim that tradi- 
tion proves that St. Peter was at Rome. But many very learned 
men, after having carefully weighed all the evidences in favor 
of this tradition, have come to the conclusion that St. Peter never 
was at Rome. Men sc eminent for critical research as Spanheim 
of Holland, Flaccius of Germany, and Barrow of England, to- 
gether with many other eminent divines, maintain that St. Peter 
never was at Rome. The Waldenses, an ancient Christian 
Church in Italy who date back their history many centuries be- 
fore the Reformation, positively deny that St. Peter ever was at 
Rome. To these may be added such names as Marsilius., Michael, 
Salmasius, Baur, Schwegler, De Wette. The distinguished His- 
torian Neander, who had been at first inclined to accept the tra- 
dition in favor of Peter's residence at Rome, on a careful reex- 



6 ST. PAUL'S CHURCH OF ROME. 

animation of the arguments in favor, and in opposition to it, ex- 
presses himself douhtfully about it. Even such historians as ac- 
cept it are not confident about it. Dr. Schaff, in his History of 
the Apostolic Church, after sifting, and comparing, and analyzing 
it, comes to the meagre conclusion that Peter was not the founder 
of the Church at Rome, that he was not the first bishop of Rome, 
that he did not go there in A. D. 42 or 43 as Romanists claim, 
that he was not bishop of Rome 23 or 25 years as they pretend, 
that he must have come to Rome in the last half of A. D. 63, or 
beginning of A. D. 64, and that "we can hardly extend his so- 
journ there beyond a year." The trifling remark of the erratic 
Whiston, about "weak Protestants," who deny that Peter was at 
Rome, is deserving of no attention whatever. Clement of Rome, 
Ignatius, Papias, and Justin Martyr, of the Apostolic age, are ap- 
pealed to as proof. But Clement says nothing whatever about 
Peter having been at Rome. The word used by Ignatius, that 
is pressed for this purpose, by no means necessitates his per : 
sonal presence there. The testimony of Papias is confessedly 
obscure, and is not found at all in the fragment of his writings 
that has come down to us. Justin Martyr makes not the most 
distant allusion to Peter's being at Rome. Irenaeus and Caius 
of the 2nd Century ascribe the founding of the Church at Rome 
as much to Paul as to Peter, and mention no time when either 
was there. The other earlier writers quoted as proof, such as 
Tertullian. Clement of Alexandria. Cyprian, and Origen, lived 
in the 3d Century. Eusebius, Jerome, and Augustine were 
all of the 4th Century after Christ. They almost uniformly 
mention, not Peter only, but Paul also, in connection with the 
Church at Rome, whether as founding it, as being the bishop of 
it. or as suffering martyrdom for it. When ail that these writers 
testify in this matter, is carefully weighed, and all their errors 
and fabulous stories are eliminated, the whole amounts only to 
a probable conjecture, not to absolute certainty. 



ST. PAUL'S CHURCH OF ROME. 7 

But there is no uncertainty about St. Paul's residence at Rome. 
No one has ever intimated any doubt, even the smallest, about 
St. Paul's having been there. Both Scripture and tradition make 
such plain and direct mention of St. Paul's being at Rome, that 
no one has ever had, for a moment, any doubt about that fact. 

But the question of the divine appointment of the papacy is 
not settled by the mere fact of St. Peter's having been in Rome. 
He may have been in Rome, and have been pastor of that 
church, and have been put to death there, and yet not have been 
Pope. We may concede this, and still reject the papacy. Our 
Romanist friends know this very well. St. Paul was certainly 
there, was the minister of the church there, suffered martyrdom 
there, and yet they do not admit that these acknowledged facts 
prove that St. Paul was Pope. But, to use the language of Rev. 
Dr. Butler, Prof, of Eccles. History in the Divinity School of 
Philadelphia, uttered when standing in the Legation of the 
United States, at Rome, "If the Papacy had not been a gradual 
growth, rather than a manufacture or an invention, it would 
seem as if St. Paul and not St. Peter would have been designated 
as the Prince of the Apostles, and head of the Church, with his 
see at Rome. A far more powerful argument, independent of 
Romish tradition, could certainly be constructed for the claims 
of the former than of the latter." * 

St. Paul is expressly, and by way of eminence, called "the 
Apostle of the Gentiles," that is, of the nations. St. Peter was 
never so called. If St. Peter was Pope, the title would have 
been applied to him rather than to any other of the apostles. 
But it is never applied to him. St. Peter is never called "the 
apostle of the nations," as he really would have been, if Pope, 
Vicegerent of God, over the whole Christian Church, and Vicar 
of Christ on the earth. St. Paul is so called, not St. Peter. 



*) Dr. C. M. Butler's St. Paul in Rome. 



8 ST. PAUL'S CHURCH OF ROME. 

Of St. Paul it is expressly said that he had "the care of all the 
Churches." This was never said of St. Peter. He never had 
the care of all the Churches. If Pope, the care of all the Churches 
would have, by virtue of his office, devolved on him. As this 
was never said of him, it was never true of him, and therefore, 
he never was Pope. But if this would have been said of St. 
Peter, as it is said of St. Paul, we would never hear the last of 
this passage from the lips of Romish priests, as proof that St. 
Peter was the first Pope, and as the head of the Christian Church 
in the whole world, and Vicar of Christ, was the shepherd of 
all the Churches. But this is said of St. Paul, not of St. Peter. 
The papists have certainly made a mistake. It must be St. Paul 
whom they mean, and who was the first pope. 

St. Paul traversed nearly the whole of the Roman world, 
planted churches every where, visited country after country, 
and spake personally to the churches every where with the most 
positive apostolic authority. Having the care of all the churches, 
he acted as general superintendent over the churches, and was 
literally the Catholic Bishop of the whole Church. Of St. Peter's 
travels we only certainly know that he went from Jerusalem to 
Joppa, from Joppa to Caesarea, from Caesarea back again to Je- 
rusalem, and from Jerusalem to Antioch. And ancient Church 
tradition makes it very uncertain whether St. Peter was ever out 
of Palestine, or farther than Asia Minor. He was "the apostle 
of the Jews," and to the Jews in their own land, he mainly con- 
fined his labors. The great missionary apostle who had the care 
of all the churches, in all the nations, was St. Paul. He pre- 
sided with wonderful zeal and power over all the church. If 
there was a first Pope among, and over the apostles, and over 
the Church, it must surely have been St. Paul. 

St. Paul, feeling that he was the Apostle, not of one country, 
but of many countries, wrote fourteen Epistles, and sent 'them 
almost broadcast over the widely extended countries of Asia and 



ST. PAUL'S CHURCH OF ROME. 



Europe. Peter wrote only two Epistles, and those only to the 
"strangers, or dispersed Jewish Christians." Paul's Epistles are 
the Encyclical Letters that one who felt that "the care of all the 
Churches," rested upon him, would naturally feel called on to ad- 
dress to them. He was a vigilant Catholic Bishop of the entire 
Church Catholic. He had a weighty charge. He felt his responsi- 
bility. He was faithful to the functions of his great office. He super- 
intended with consummate ability and vigilance, his vast diocese. 

Particularly, St. Paul addressed the only Epistle to the Ro- 
mans that we have. The language and tone of the Epistle are such 
as one would use who felt "that he had over them a divinely 
commissioned superintendence.'' St. Peter sent no Epistle to 
the Church at Rome. He did not care for that Church as St. 
Paul did. St. Paul was their bishop, and cared for their spirit- 
ual interests with much faithfulness. We fear that Rome has 
made a mistake. Not St. Peter, but St. Paul must have had the 
headship of the Church, and been the vicar of Christ, and as 
such, was the Bishop of the Church at Rome. 

St. Peter was married. His wife's name, we are informed 
by St. Clement of Alexandria, was Perpetua, and that they had 
a daughter born to them, whose name was Petronella. His wife 
travelled with him on his missionary tours, as we learn from 1 
Cor. 9, 5. It is also said that he had a son whose name was 
Marcus, and he calls him at the end of his first Epistle "Marcus 
my son." Now, the Popes must not marry. They are com- 
pelled to be celibates. The Papists tell us they were always 
celibates. They certainly have made a mistake. It was St, 
Paul that was unmarried, and had no wife. St. Peter had a 
wife and children. St. Peter like Luther, or Luther like St. 
Peter, thought with the almighty God himself, that it is "not 
good for man to be alone." Romanists contradict this, and think 
they know better. But as between St. Paul and St. Peter they 
certainly have made a mistake. 



zo ST. PAUL'S CHURCH OF ROME. 

St. Paul in this Epistle to the church that was at R.ome, makes 
no allusion to the presence of St. Peter there, as Pope, or other- 
wise. In the last chapter of this Epistle, he seems to greet by 
name, nearly every one he knew that lived at Rome. He des- 
ignates by name twenty-nine different persons, besides "breth- 
ren, and saints, and households," but never once does he name 
St. Peter. This is strange. The Romanists tell us that St. Peter 
became Bishop of Rome in the year of our Lord 43, and was 
Pope at Rome 23 years. St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans was 
written A. D. o%. If St. Peter was Pope, he had been Pope at 
Rome fifteen years, when this Epistle was sent to Rome by St. 
Paul, and Rome was St. Peter's papal residence. If the tradi- 
tion, on which Rome relies, is true, St. Peter was now not only 
Bishop of the Church at Rome, but the divinely appointed head 
of the whole Christian Church in the world. Is it supposable 
that St. Paul would write an Epistle to the Church at Rome, ad- 
dress it "to all that be in Rome,'' send greetings in it, to more 
than twenty-nine persons by name, and perhaps to a score of 
others to whom he specially refers without giving their names, 
and yet make not a single allusion even, to their bishop of fifteen 
years' standing, and who was at the same time, the Pope of the 
whole of Christendom? Would not this be unaccountably strange? 
It is also worthy of remark, that whilst he so offensively ignores 
the Pope who lived among them, and who was over them by 
divine appointment, he arrogates to himself the authority to in- 
struct and direct them. He does all this over the head of St. 
Peter, the Pope, who was among them, and had been for fifteen 
years. Would not such conduct be not only discourteous, but 
rebellious ? It was his duty, as a loyal subject of the Pope, to 
recognize him in some way, in an Epistle addressed to the Pope's 
particular flock. It is absolutely incredible that St. Paul should 
not have recognized him either as Pope of the whole Christian 
Church, or as Bishop of the particular Church at Rome, or in 



ST. PAUL'S CHURCH OF ROME. n 

some way alluded to him, in this Epistle, if St. Peter was then 
at Rome in either of these capacities. The Romanists certainly 
are mistaken. St. Peter never was at Rome — certainly he was 
not Pope — he positively was neither Pope, nor present at Rome 
| when St. Paul wrote this Epistle to the Church in that city. 

It is deserving of particular notice that in this Epistle to the 
Romans, St. Paul claims for himself the office of the Apostle and 
bishop of the Gentile churches. He does it in three different 
passages of this Epistle. He says : "I speak unto you Gentiles, 
inasmuch as I am the Apostle of the Gentiles ; I magnify my 
office." Oh how this passage would be quoted, and reiterated, 
and rung out into the world, with all possible eloquence, by the 
priestly conductors of "Missions" throughout Christendom, if it 
could be found in one of St. Peter's Epistles ! It would be re- 
garded by them as proof positive that St. Peter was Pope. But 
St. Peter never makes such a claim. But St. Paul does. Why 
is it not quoted as proof positive that St. Paul was Pope ? Ah, 
this does not suit their purpose. It would contradict the ground- 
less, unscriptural invention, which the Romanists have manu- 
factured to bolster up their system. 

Look still further at what St. Paul says concerning himself: 
"Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, sepa- 
rated unto the Gospel of God, concerning his Son Jesus Christ, 
by whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience 
to the faith among all nations, for his name." These are re- 
markable words. Christ gave him his office, it was the apostle- 
ship, it was to extend to all nations, those nations must render 
him obedience, he had charge of the faith, he acted in Christ's 
name. Could any claim be greater? If St. Peter had used these 
words concerning himself, we Protestants would never hear the 
last of them. The words, "Thou art Peter, and on this rock I 
will build my church," which are so constantly pressed, and 
misconstrued, and misapplied, to bolster up the papacy, would 



12 ST. PAULS CHURCH OF ROME. 

be almost wholly laid aside and forgotten, and we would scarcely 
hear them, if such a passage as this of St. Paul's could he found 
in one of St. Peter's Epistles. It would be such a strong argu- 
ment, too, that I know not how we could gainsay it. But be- 
cause it is St. Paul and not St. Peter that uses this language, 
and makes this claim, we never hear any thing of it from 
priestly lips. 

Read again from this epistle "to all that be in Rome." After 
saying that he had received "the apostleship for the obedience 
of the faith among all nations," which is making the widest pos- 
sible claim for his office, he adds, "among whom are ye also, 
the called of Jesus Christ." Having said these words, he in- 
voked upon them "Grace and peace from God our Father, and 
the Lord Jesus Christ," the true apostolic benediction, worthy 
of being uttered by the head of all the churches. Here he di- 
rectly declares that the Church at Rome was within his ecclesi- 
astical province, that he had jurisdiction over them, that they 
must render him "obedience in the faith," that he was specially 
their apostle, that they must duly heed what he was about to 
say to them, and that in virtue of his authority over them as 
their apostle, he gives them the apostolic blessing. Now, all 
this would be very strange if St. Peter was at that very time 
present with them, their bishop and Pope, the head of all the 
churches, in the world, that all Christendom owed him obedience 
as Pontiff, and that it was his especial prerogative as Pope, to 
dispense the grace conveyed by pronouncing his blessing as Vicar 
of Christ among men. Was there a schism in the papacy ? Were 
there two popes ? Did both Paul and Peter claim the obedience 
of the Romans ? Was there a quarrel between them ? Did St. 
Paul write to Rome, and come to Rome, and both in his Epistle 
to the Romans, and in the Acts of the Apostles, where his visit 
to Rome is recorded in full, totally ignore St. Peter, say nothing 
about him, make no allusion to him, render him not even com- 



ST. PAUL'S CHURCH OF POME. jj 

mon courtesy, pass him disrespectfully by, and claim for him- 
self the entire obedience of the members of the Church at Rome? 
Did he do all this to beard St. Peter in his papal palace, and for 
the purpose of having a fight with him ? By no means. No one 
ever dreams of such a thing. But how else can we think about 
St. Paul's claims, and St. Paul's procedure, if at that very time 
St. Peter was at Rome, had been their pastor and bishop for 
fifteen years, and was the divinely appointed head of the whole 
Christian Church in the world ? The only sensible conclusion 
we can come to is that St. Peter was not at Rome, was not their 
pastor or bishop, was not Pope or the divinely appointed head 
of the whole Christian Church. The Romanists certainly have 
made a mistake. 

St. Paul's pretensions and claims for himself, are still more 
noticeable when he says in this Epistle to the Romans : "Never- 
theless, brethren, I have written unto you the more boldly, in 
some sort, as putting you in mind, because of the grace that is 
given unto me of God, that I should be the minister of Jesus 
Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the Gospel of God, that the 
offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified 
of the Holy Ghost. I have therefore, whereof I may glory, through 
Jesus Christ, in these things that pertain to God." Here he re- 
peats the claim he had made before. He was the minister or 
apostle of God to the Gentile nations and therefore to them at 
Rome, this office was given him not of his fellow disciples, or of 
the church, but of God, he dispensed the grace of the Gospel of God 
by virtue of this office, through his ministrations the Gentiles 
were brought in and were acceptable to God, that as having this 
apostleship and ministry he had written to put them in mind, 
and in doing so he spoke boldly as became one who had such 
a high office, and such apostolic authority. If St. Peter had 
written those words and made this claim for himself, the Ro- 
manists would every where quote them as proof positive that 



z 4 ST. PAUL'S CHURCH OF ROME. 

he was the Pope, that Jesus Christ had given him universal ju- 
risdiction, and clothed. him with papal authority, that God had 
specially put him at the head of the Christian Church among all 
the nations of the world, that no faith and worship would be 
acceptable that failed to acknowledge such headship in St. Peter, 
that no Gospel of God was canonically ministered, the authority 
for which did not come officially by ordination from our Holy 
Father, Pope Peter I., and that it would be Protestant heresy 
in any man to ignore his claims, and arrogate to himself the 
apostleship, and speak to the church at Rome about obedience 
to the faith which he preached, and refuse to bow the knee be- 
fore him, and kiss his toe, and call him "our Lord God the Pope," 
the infallible head of the Christian Church in the whole world, 
and the vicar and vicegerent of Jesus Christ on the earth ! But 
as these are St. Paul's words, the Romanists say nothing about 
them. It is wondrously strange that St. Paul should send such 
an encyclical letter to Rome itself, wholly ignoring St. Peter, 
who had been according to their false traditions, not only at 
Rome when this letter of St. Paul's reached that city, but had 
been their bishop for fifteen years, and had been the divinely 
appointed and universally acknowledged Pope from the time 
that Christ said to him, "Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will 
build my church." It is passing strange. Was Paul a Protestant 
who protested against Peter's arrogant claims ? Or was he a 
heretical Lutheran who ignored the Pope altogether, paid no re- 
gard to his anathemas, burned his bulls if he had the opportu- 
nity, and magnified his own office as a minister called of God, 
and owing allegiance, not to the Pope, but to Jesus Christ, who 
alone is Head of the Church, to whom be glory forever ? Rome 
has surely made a mistake. Rome has forgotten. It was St. 
Paul, and not St. Peter, whom Jesus Christ had appointed to 
the apostleship over them. 

When we examine at some length, the kind of instruction and 



ST. PAUL'S CHURCH OF ROME, 15 

admonition which St. Paul gives to the Church at Rome, in this 
Epistle to them, we note still further the claim to authority which 
he makes, as the Apostle who had the great care of their faith 
and life. He says : "I thank my God through Jesus Christ, for 
you, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world. 
For God is my witness whom I serve with my spirit in the Gos- 
pel of his Son, that without ceasing, I make mention of you in 
my prayers: making request, if by any means, now at length, I 
might have a prosperous journey by the will of God, to come to 
you ; for I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some 
spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established ; that is, that I 
may be comforted with you by the mutual faith of you and me. 
Now, I would not have you ignorant, brethren, how that often- 
times I purposed to come unto you, but was let hitherto, that I 
might have some fruit among you also, as among other Gentiles." 
These would be strange words to write to a congregation, over 
the head of their pastor, who was the Pope, or Vicar of Christ 
on earth, and had been for fifteen years. If St. Peter was at 
Rome when this letter arrived, and was read to them, he must 
have stared in utter astonishment, at the bold presumption of a 
man who could so coolly usurp St. Peter's office, take his place, 
and talk about imparting to them some spiritual gift, and having 
some fruit among them as among other nations, as if St. Peter, 
the Pope, had failed to give them all that they needed in the way 
of infallible doctrines, and gifts, and blessings, for the very pur- 
pose of imparting which he had been made Pope, and had his 
papal residence among them. It is wonderful to observe the 
fashion in which St. Paul sets St. Peter aside, and assumes 
himself "the duty of oversight and ministration." "It is incred- 
ible that St. Paul should have written in this strain if St. Peter 
had been bishop of Rome, and Vicar of Christ." 

Let us now go still further into the interior of this great Epistle 
of St. Paul to the Romans, and learn what were the doctrines 



r6 ST. PAUL'S CHURCH OF ROME. 

which he impressed with the whole force of his character, upon 
their minds and hearts. We may say in very few words, that 
the one object which St. Paul kept in view from the beginning 
to the end of this Epistle, was, to teach, and defend, and illu- 
strate the working of the doctrine of justification by faith. He 
first proves that the selfrighteous Pharisee, and the proud and 
haughty Greek, were alike sinners, under condemnation, and 
with no hope of justification by their own works. The effort to 
convince them of this humiliating truth, as put forth in the first 
part of the Epistle, is a master piece of successful reasoning. 

Then the statement of Christ's redemption by His vicarious 
obedience of the broken law, and by His substituted suffering on 
the cross, as furnishing the only ground of hope for the remission 
of sins, and the believer's justification before God, on that ground 
alone, is made with a clearness, and directness of application, 
that places St. Paul in the front rank of profound divines. 

Hear his eloquent words : "The just shall live by faith." "We 
know that what things the law saith, it saith to them who are 
under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the 
world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds 
of the law, there shall no flesh be justified in his sight, for by 
the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of 
God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law 
and the prophets. Even the righteousness of God which is by 
faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe, for 
all have sinned and have come short of the glory of God. Being 
justified freely (without merit) by his grace through the redemp- 
tion which is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath set forth to be a 
propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteous- 
ness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbear- 
ance of God. To declare, I say, at this time, his righteousness, 
that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in 
Jesus. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith 



ST, PAUL'S CHURCH OF ROME, 17 

without the deeds of the law." Here is justification not by works 
but by faith alone — not by merit but by grace alone — not by 
our own righteousness but by the righteousness of Christ alone, 
which is alone acquired by faith. The several parts of the true 
|] evangelical doctrine of justification by faith are so clearly stated 
[ in this passage, that there can be no misunderstanding it. Justi- 
I lication is our acquittal before God's judgment. Acquittal requires 
I perfect innocense or righteousness as the ground of it. We are 
not righteous but guilty. We are therefore under condemnation. 
The perfect righteousness on the ground of which we are justi- 
fied is not our righteousness, but Christ's righteousness. It is 
declared or reckoned to the believer. Faith is therefore the means 
or instrument of its appropriation. The result is the remission 
of sins, and our acceptance, and peace with God. This faith, 
of course, must be a living faith, and good works are not its life, 
' but the evidences of its life, and they will necessarily follow, not 
as procuring our justification, but as proving the fact of our faith, 
for a dead faith which hath not works, is no faith. This is the 
Gospel which St. Paul preached to the Church at Rome, by this 
Epistle to the Romans, many chapters of which are employed 
by him in stating, defending, applying, and answering objections 
to it. 

It is deserving of distinct remark that he condemns in the 
strongest terms the persons who reject this doctrine of justifica- 
tion by faith alone. 4 He mourns with unutterable sorrow over 
those of his own countrymen, who "being ignorant of God's 
righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteous- 
ness, have not submitted themselves to the righteousness of God. 
For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one 
that believeth." 

Such is the doctrine of St. Paul as he taught it to the Romans. 
It is that "Christ alone, received by faith, is the righteousness of 
man." But such is not the doctrine taught and held by those 



18 ST. PAUL'S CHURCH OF ROME. 

who now constitute the Church of Rome. St. Paul, the apostle 
of the Gentiles, and true Vicar of Christ, who cared for all the 
churches, and kept them in the true faith of Christ, made this 
doctrine ring out in eloquent tones that reverberated among the 
seven hills of Rome. And the same doctrine was sacredly held, 
and cherished, and trusted in, by the Church of Rome then, by 
Clement, St. Paul's successor, and for several centuries after- 
wards. The present Pope who claims to be the infallible vice- 
gerent of Christ, directly contradicts St. Paul, teaches another 
faith, another way of justification, and thunders forth the severest 
anathemas against those who believe the doctrine of St. Paul, 
that we are justified by Christ's righteousness alone appropriated 
by faith. St. Paul's way of justification, and the Pope's way of 
justification, are quite different things. 

Luther in his Commentary on Galatians has very clearly stated 
the doctrine of the Romanists on this subject- In remarking on 
Gal. 2 : 16 he says : "Wherefore, the wicked and pernicious 
opinion of the papists is utterly to be condemned, who attribute 
the merit of grace and remission of sins to the work wrought. 
For they say that a good work before grace is able to obtain 
grace of congruence, (which they call meritum de congruo) be- 
cause it is meet that God should reward such a work. But when 
grace is obtained, the work following deserveth everlasting life of 
due debt and worthiness, (which they call meritum de condigno.) 
As for example, if a man, being in deadly sin, without grace, do 
a good work of his own natural inclination ; that is, if he say or 
hear a mass, or give alms, and such like, this man of congruence 
deserveth grace. When he hath thus obtained grace, he doth 
now a work, which of worthiness deserveth everlasting life. For 
the first, God is no debtor ; but because he is just and good, it 
behoveth him to approve such a good work, though it be done 
in deadly sin, and to give grace for such a service. But when 
grace is obtained, God is become a debtor, and is constrained of 



ST, PAUL'S CHURCH OF ROME. ig 

right and duty to give eternal life. For now it is not only a work 
of free will, done according to the substance, but also done in 
grace, which maketh a man acceptable unto God, that is to say 
in charity." 

"This is the divinity of the antichristian kingdom, which here 
I recite, to the end that the disputation of Paul may be the better 
understood (for two contrary • things being set together may be 
the better known,) and moreover, that all men may see how far 
from the truth these blind guides and leaders of the blind have 
wandered ; and how, by this wicked and blasphemous doctrine, 
j they have not only darkened the Gospel, but have taken it clean 
I away, and buried Christ utterly. For if I, being in deadly sin, 
can do any little work, which is not only acceptable in God's 
sight of itself, and according to the substance, but also is able to 
deserve grace of congruence, and when I have received grace, I 
may do works according to grace ; that is to say, according to 
' charity, and get of right and duty eternal life. What need have 
I now of the grace of God, for forgiveness of sins, of the promise, 
and of the death and victory of Christ ? Christ is now to me un- 
profitable, and his benefit of none effect ; for I have free will and 
power to do good works, whereby I deserve grace of congruence, 
and afterwards, by the worthiness of my work, eternal life." 

"Hereby it plainly appeareth, that the pope, and his bishops, 
doctors, priests, and all his religious fraternity, had no knowledge, 
or regard of holy matters. For if they had seen, but, as it were, 
through a cloud, what Paul calleth sin, and what he calleth 
grace, they would never have compelled the people to believe 
such abominable lies. By deadly sin, they understood only the 
external work committed against the law, as murder, theft, and 
such like. They could not see that ignorance, hatred and con- 
tempt of God in the heart, ingratitude, murmuring against God, 
are also deadly sins, and that the flesh cannot think, speak, or 

do any thing, but what is devilish, and also against God. If they 

2* 



2o ST. PAUL'S CHURCH OF ROME, 

had seen these mischiefs, fast rooted in the nature of man, fhey 
would never have devised such impudent and execrable dreams 
touching the desert of congruence and worthiness."* 

St. Paul denies that a man can obtain remission of sins by his 
own merit, He teaches "that believers obtain the remission of 
their sins through Christ, by faith alone, without any merit of 
their own." In the Romish Confutation of the Augsburg Con- 
fession, delivered to the Diet at Augsburg soon after the Confes- 
sion was read, June 25, 1530, they "insolently reject these two 
tenets : first, that we deny that man can obtain remission of his 
sins through his own merit; and secondly, that we hold, teach, 
and confess that no one is reconciled to God, or obtain remission 
of his sins, but through faith in Christ alone." f In other words, 
St. Paul teaches, and we hold because St. Paul teaches, that no 
man can obtain remission of sins through his own merit. Pvome 
condemns this, and teaches that a man can obtain remission of 
sins through his own merit. St. Paul teaches, and we hold be- 
cause St. Paul teaches, that no one is reconciled to God or ob- 
tains remission of his sins but through faith in Christ alone. 
Rome condemns this, and teaches that he can be reconciled to 
God and does obtain the remission of his sins, otherwise than 
through faith in Christ alone. Rome has sadly fallen away from 
St Paul's faith. The Church at Rome as St. Paul instructed it, 
had the true faith. The Church of Rome as the present Popes 
constitute it, have another faith, condemn St. Paul's faith, and 
therefore, have not the true faith. The Church at Rome as St. 
Paul constituted it was the true Church because it held the true 
faith. Rut the Church of Rome as the present Popes constitute 
it is not the true Church because they do not hold the true faith, 
reject with haughty insolence the true faith, and anathematize 
and condemn Lutherans, and all Protestants, who hold the true 



*) Luther on Galatians, chapter 2: 16. 

X) Melanchthon's Apol. Augs. Conf. Article IS. 



ST. PAUL'S CHURCH OF ROME. si 

•faith. The issue is directly and squarely made between St 
Paul's Church of Rome, and the Pope's Church of Rome. I 
hold to St. Paul's Church of Rome. May God have mercy upon 
all deluded souls who hold to the Pope's Church of Rome. 

The practical religious life enjoined upon the Church at Rome 
by St. Paul, is equally deserving of attention, with the doctrinal 
instruction which he gave them. He inculcated the doctrine of 
justification by Christ's righteousness alone, apprehended by 
faith, but by a faith that worketh all manner of righteousness. 
When he established the doctrine in the first five chapters, so 
firmly that it could not be shaken, he proceeds with all his ac- 
customed clearness and force of argument, to combat the objec- 
tion that we may "continue in sin that grace may abound." In 
other w r ords, that salvation by grace alone, and not by any merit 
of our own, does not relax the power of strict holiness in the 
heart, nor give license to sin. He requires absolute deadness 
to sin, and that "the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus must 
make us free from the law of sin and death." The true spirit- 
ual life in the soul is Christ's life in it, the Spirit of Christ dwel- 
ling therein. He sums up the definition of true religious faith 
and devotion in the well known sentence: "The Kingdom of 
God is not meat and drink, but righteousness, peace, and joy in 
the Holy Ghost." His was not a religion of mere ceremony and 
form, of genuflection, and pilgrimage, and pictures, and proces- 
sions, and images, and rosaries, and parade, and crossings, and 
bowings, and holy water, but of true believing, spiritual feeling, 
sanctified dispositions, sound devotion, genuine holiness, godly, 
righteous living. Such was the practical instruction which St. 
Paul gave to all that were in Rome. 

But what is the religion that now prevails there? How are 
the teachings which he uttered, observed there now? We may 
answer by quoting at some length, from the Lectures of Dr. 
Butler, delivered only 17 years ago in the' city of Rome, under 



22 ST. PAUL'S CHURCH OF ROME. 

the flag of the United States, floating over the Legation. Unless j 
protected by that flag, the symbol of liberty and tolerance, he 
would not have dared to utter such sentiments, within a few 
rods of the Vatican, and in Rome the heart of the papal system. 
They were delivered at a time when things did not seem to go j 
well with the Pope, and popery. His temporal power was in 
danger, and soon after he lost it altogether. He ascribed his 
misfortunes to the decay of faith, and the spread of irreligion 
among the people. From his high papal throne, overlooking his 
wide domain, and lamenting the desolations in his dominions, 
he issued, with all the pomp of papal formality, his ghostly rem- 
edy for the revival of faith and sanctity in the minds of the faith- 
ful. With all my hearer's ingenuity they could not guess what 
he, who claims to be the Vicar of Christ, and Vicegerent of God 
over the Christian Church in the whole world, recommended in 
such a serious emergency as this. Let us hear Dr. Butler: 

"The Church of Rome still exists. A Bishop of Pvome occu- 
pies the see which seems not to have been constituted, or at least 
occupied, at the time in which St. Paul wrote his Epistle. A few 
months since he proclaimed the sorrow which he felt at the pal- 
pable decay of faith, the spread of practical irreligion, and of 
speculative infidelity, throughout Italy and the world. He ad- 
dressed to the faithful, animated exhortations to second his ef- 
forts to win back the favor of God, and to revive faith and sanc- 
tity in the minds of men. We know, from St. Paul's Epistle 
what exhortations he would have addressed to the Saints in 
Rome at such a crisis. He would have exhorted them to earn- 
est prayer to the Father, through the Son, for the converting, re- 
viving, and sanctifying power of the Holy Ghost to be poured out 
upon priests and people. He would have reminded them of 
their high privileges as the freely forgiven children of God, by 
faith in Christ Jesus, and of the obligation, through the constrain- 
ing love of Christ, to* live holily and unblamably, and in a spirit 



ST. PA [/rS CHURCH OF ROME. 2 3 

of true consecration to God and love to man. Were these, or 
similar, exhortations addressed by the Bishop of Rome to the 
saints that are in Rome ?" 

Nothing of the kind. Shall I tell you what was the great and 
powerful remedy, which the "holy Father of all the faithful," 
proposed as the most effectual of all the remedies he knew, or 
could suggest at such a dreadful time as this ? I know that the 
faces of Protestants will burn with shame, and even the cheeks 
of intelligent Romanists, ought to blush, when I name it. It 
was in all seriousness this : 

"They were enjoined with their presence, and faith, and pray- 
ers to attend a spectacle, for healing the evils of the times and 
propitiating the favor of heaven. A picture of the Saviour would 
be carried by Pope and cardinals, priests and monks, with ban- 
ner and music and incense, and the pomp of gilded vestments, 
from the Basilica of St. John Lateran to that of Santa Maria 
Maggiore. It was this picture in which the hope of the restora- 
tion of faith and holiness seemed to be reposed. It was said to 
have been outlined by St. Luke for the Virgin Mary, three days 
after Christ's ascension ; to have been miraculously colored in 
the night; to have been carried during the siege of Titus to Pella 
and subsequently to Constantinople; to have been taken away 
in the seventh century by the persecuted Bishop of Constantino- 
ple, and consigned to the sea, over which it passed, in a perpen- 
dicular position, to Ostia, in Italy, 16 miles from Rome, in twenty- 
four hours, when, seeing the Pope ready to receive it upon the 
shore, it rose and placed itself in his hands. The Bishop of 
Rome's method of reviving faith and religion was the transfer of 
this picture from the Basilica of St John Lateran to that of Santa 
Maria Maggiore. It evidently differs from the method which 
would have been adopted by St. Paul. He knew of no such 
means of grace." * 

I Dr. Butler's St Paul in Eome. 



24 ST. PAUL'S CHURCH OF ROME, 

When the day came, it was a wonderful spectacle. It was 
one of the grandest of the many grand shows of the Pope, and 
cardinals, and priests, and monks, and people in the holy, papal 
city of Rome. My hearers need not fear that I am slandering 
the papacy by these statements. The whole took place only a 
little more than a dozen years ago, and during the pontificate of 
Pope Pius IX. 

"All the statements above mentioned, elaborately and diffusely 
narrated, are found in a printed document, scattered all over 
Rome, at the time of the exposition of the picture, entitled. 
'Origine della S. Imagine', and concluding with the words 'Con 
permesso.' The crowds who attended its transfer and its expo- 
sition were immense. During the last days the press of people 
toward the picture, with rosaries, crosses, jewels, handkerchiefs, 
books and other articles, kept two priests constantly employed 
in touching them to the glass in front, by which a miraculous 
virtue was supposed to be imparted to them ; and the Swiss 
guard could with difficulty keep the crowd back from the altar. 
The exposition continued from the 6th to the 13th of September 
1862." 

But was this remedy successful? Did it revive faith and piety? 
Did it secure the divine favor ? Yes, it was thought so. They 
were largely proclaimed and published at the time. Dr. Butler, 
who was present at Rome at the time, who made personal in- 
quiry, and who visited the localities mentioned, makes the fol- 
lowing statements : 

"In the little town of Vico Varo, m the Sabine Mountains, in 
a miniature chapel, I saw, last spring, a picture of the Virgin 
Mary. It seems that this picture has for some months been in 
the habit of rolling up its eyes, and changing perceptibly its color. 
The eyes are not only rolled up and down, but sometimes move 
sideways, and occasionally the eyelashes move. This is received 
as evidence that the Virgin Mary has heard the supplications of 



ST. PAUL'S CHURCH OF ROME. 25 

the faithful, and that she will intercede with her Son to intercede 
with the Father to avert the evils which threaten the Church of 
Rome and the world, and to bestow upon them anew his bless- 
ing. Another picture in the same region makes the same mirac- 
ulous manifestations. Homage to a picture of the Saviour, 
painted by St. Luke, to act as the effectual prayer ; and pictures 
of the Madonna, that roll their eyes up and down, and occasion- 
ally sideways, and a movement of the eyelids, as answers to the 
prayer, — this is the method of seeking and proclaiming spiritual 
blessings adopted by the present Church of Rome. Such tokens 
of divine favor as these, following the act of faith, of carrying in 
solemn state the picture from one basilica to another through the 
streets of Rome, are of such a kind as would not have been ap- 
preciated by St. Paul. He evidently knew nothing of such 
methods of reviving faith, and procuring the divine blessing." 

Let it be remembered that all this occurred, not in the middle 
ages, usually called the dark ages, nor in the interior of Mexico 
or South America among half civilized Indians, but only seven- 
teen years ago, in the city of Rome, among polished Italians, and 
during the pontificate of one of the best of their popes, Pio Nono. 
Neither is it a Protestant slander, as such statements are often 
called by Romanists, for the facts are so notorious that they can- 
not be for a moment disputed. 

"In view of these new methods of. the Church of Rome, it is 
scarcely necessary to ask if the truths which St. Paul so earn- 
j estly labored to implant have lived, and thriven, and borne holy 
fruits where they were so early introduced ? Alas ! there is not 
one of them which the Church of Rome accepts. There is not 
one of them which she does not reject. Justification by faith 
only, over which holy Paul lifted a glowing anthem, Rome 
visits with anathema. How is it with the errors against which 
St. Paul so strenuously labored? Rome adopts them. She 
preaches the merit which Paul denounced. And what in the 



26 ST. PAUL'S CHURCH OF ROME. 

place of Paul's fundamentals are hers ? Dogmas of which there 
is not the shadow of a trace in his Epistle. The supremacy of 
St. Peter and his Vicarate of Christ, Transubstantiation, the Im- 
maculate conception of the Virgin," Papal Infallibility, the Invo- 
cation of Saints, Purgatory, Auricular Confession, Masses for the 
dea'd, Indulgences, the worship of Mary, repeating Pater Nosters 
and Ave Marias and counting them by the beads on the Rosa- 
ries, Penances, Works of Supererrogation, Meriting remission by 
Works, — these are the chief doctrines of the true faith, and the 
chief works of the true Church as Rome teaches. "Of all these 
fundamental dogmas, we find in the Epistle of St. Paul, which 
he intended to be the chart and guide of the Church of Rome 
through all time, that there is not a word — not a word! Simply 
to state such a fact is more impressive than it could be made by 
the most mournful and impassioned declamation." 

Dr. Butler concludes his Lecture with the following very beau- 
tiful and striking reference. "There has recently been found 
beneath the Church of San Clemente in Rome, a larger and 
nobler edifice upon which the present edifice, much less homo- 
geneous and complete than the former, has been erected. That 
original Church, itself founded on the ruins of pagan structures, 
was filled up with rubbish, and so completely hidden from view, 
that its existence was unknown for ages. The descriptions of 
the original edifice have been misappropriated to the second and 
meaner structure. It is now in the process of excavation, and 
as one pillar after another of precious and polished marble is 
disclosed, its superiority has become more and more apparent. 
And so, under the present Church of Rome, there lies buried and 
filled with superstitious rubbish and forgotten for ages, a nobler 
and purer Church, the Church of St. Paul and of Clement. But 
instead of uncovering to the light its walls, which are salvation, 
and its gates which are praise, instead of disclosing its pure altars 
and its polished pillars, Rome piles new rubbish on, and packs 



ST. PAUL'S CHURCH OF ROME. 27 

it down, and does not permit her children even to know of its 
existence." * 

But blessed be the Lord God of truth, we have both the Epis- 
tles of St. Paul, and the Epistles of St. Peter, which join to- 
gether in most delightful harmony in teaching the same blessed 
doctrines of salvation, not by merit but by grace ; not by works 
but by faith ; not by the intercession of Mary but by the interces- 
sion of Christ ; not by the invocation of saints, but by the wor- 
ship of God in Christ ; not by the carrying of images and pict- 
ures, but by the spiritual devotion of true and believing hearts ; 
not by error but by truth ; not by a fallen Church, but by the 
true Church which God hath planted, of which Jesus Christ is 
the only Head, in which God's Word is preached and believed, 
in which the holy Sacraments are rightly dispensed, and in 
which the only true and living God is correctly worshipped in 
spirit and in truth. Blessed are all they who hold to the faith 
of St. Paul, and not to the dogmas of the Popes. Blessed are 
all they who are in the Church, as St. Paul would constitute the 
Church, as the Church of Rome was when St. Paul constituted 
it, and as it has been reconstituted, and restored to primitive 
purity, and truth, and freedom, by the great and ever blessed 
Reformation. 



*) St. Paul in Eome. 



DISCOURSE II. 



THE PAPACY. 

Luke 22 : 24 — 26. — And there was a strife among them which of them 
should be accounted the greatest. And he said unto them, The 
Kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and they that 
exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall 
not be so : but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the 
younger ; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. 

THE desire for power is very natural to the human breast. 
One man wishes to be not only greater than another, but to 
domineer over the other. This is not represented as a good, but 
as an evil ambition in man. Christ rebuked it. It early mani- 
fested itself in the Church. It existed in the hearts of the disciples, 
who were chosen by our Lord himself as His apostles. One de- 
sired to be greatest, and there was a strife among them which 
it should be. Which one aspired to this position and authority 
over the rest we are not informed. But it was one of the twelve. 
The contention was very sharp. As more than one of them de- 
sired the precedence, it could not be decided among themselves. 
When it came to the notice of Jesus, He at once reproved them, 
and denounced the unholy ambition that found a place in their 
hearts. He declared peremptorily that there should be no lord- 
ship among the Apostles. One should not be exalted to a posi- 
sition of superiority, so as to exercise authority over the others. 
He referred to the usage of the heathen around them, who 
aspired to despotic power, and tyrannized over those who were 
brought into a state of subjection. As to the Apostles, however, 
He expressly said : "But ye shall not be so." In His college 
of Apostles, the lowest should be the greatest, and the servant 
should be the chief. 



THE PAPACY. 



2 g 



Whilst Christ was personally present with the Apostles, He 
was able to keep this vaulting ambition in subjection. His 
earnest and pointed rebuke of it, as it exhibited itself in them 
had the effect of keeping it within bounds for ages after His as- 
cension. Indeed, for several centuries it was comparatively 
quiet, and gave the Church no very special trouble. But it aft- 
erward developed itself rapidly, and obtained large proportions. 
In the course of some centuries it resolved itself into the imag- 
ined primacy of St. Peter, and in the succession and lofty pre- 
tensions of th^ Pope of Rome. 

The public mind has recently become a good deal interested 
in the discussion of the subject of the pretensions of the Church 
of Rome, provoked by a certain "Mission" that was held here a 
short time ago. I had prepared an unpretending sermon for last 
Sunday Evening, on the relation of St. Paul and St. Peter to the 
Church at Rome, to which Church, St. Paul had addressed his 
Epistle to the Romans, because I thought I saw in the fact that 
the only Epistle to the Church of Rome which we have, was 
written, not by St. Peter, but by St. Paul, opened the door for 
the discussion of the question, whether St. Peter really had ever 
been at Rome, and was its Bishop, and was Pope over all Chris- 
tendom. I was greatly surprized at the interest which the an- 
nouncement to the Congregation in the morning, that I would 
preach it in the evening, awakened, and at the large attendance 
present to hear it. It proved to me that there is a want here. 
The community is excited on the subject. A spirit of inquiry is 
abroad. People desire information. It is our duty to endeavor 
to give it. When truth is attacked, truth must defend itself. 
And let it be well understood, that we did not begin this con- 
troversy. It was begun by our opponents. We are the defend- 
ants in this case. 

The claims of "The Papacy" will be the subject of discussion 
this evening. 



So THE PAPACY. 

One of the most vital questions at issue between us and the 
Church of Rome, commonly known, because it arrogantly claims 
to be, the Catholic Church, relates to the primacy and power 
of the Pope. It is the Church of Rome itself that makes this 
question so vital. The Lutheran Church exists without a Pope 
at the head of it. Other Churches exist without a Pope, or pri- 
mate, or Vicar of Christ, or Vicegerent of God, at the head of 
them. We, who are outside of the Church of Rome, might be 
able to conceive that the Church of Rome, too, might exist with- 
out such Pope, or Vicar, or Vicegerent of God, at the head of it. 
But the Church of Rome will not consent to such a thing. The 
Church of Rome cannot exist without the Pope, any more than 
I could live and act without my head. If you cut off my head, I 
am a corpse. If the Pope were taken away from the Church of 
Rome, it would be without a head. In its own opinion it would 
die. The existence, and power/and jurisdiction of the Pope, as 
the head of the Church, is therefore made a vital question by the 
Church of Rome itself. To deny and reject the office and juris- 
diction of the Pope, is to deny and reject the Christian faith. It 
is made by the Church of Rome, an article of faith, and none can 
deviate from it, or reject it without loss of salvation. 

Some of my hearers may deem this a strong assertion. It is 
not too strong. It is the doctrine of the Church of Rome. 

As I do not wish to make any assertion, or make any charge 
without proof, I will quote on this subject, from the ''dogmatic 
decrees of the Vatican Council 1 ' published in the third session, 
held April 24 1870 at Rome. It is as follows : 

"Wherefore, resting on plain testimonies of the sacred writ- 
ings, and adhering to the plain and express decrees both of our 
predecessors, the Roman Pontiffs, and of the General Councils, 
we renew the definition of the oecumenical Council of Florence, 
in virtue of which, all the faithful of Christ must believe that the 
holy Apostolic See, and the Roman Pontiff, possesses the pri- 



THE PAPACY. 3 1 

1 macy over the whole world, and that the Roman Pontiff is the 

J successor of blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and is true 

' Vicar of Christ, and head of the -whole Church, and father and 

teacher of all Christians ; and that full power was given to him 

! in blessed Peter, to rule, feed, and govern the universal Church 

by Jesus Christ our Lord ; as is also contained in the acts of the 

Ceneral Councils and in the sacred canon. 

"Hence we teach and declare that by the appointment of our 
| Lord, the Roman Church possesses a superiority of power over 
all other Churches, and that this power of jurisdiction of the 
Roman Pontiff, which is truly Episcopal, is immediate; to which 
all of whatever rite and dignity, both pastors and faithful, both 
individually and collectively, are bound by their duty of hierarch- 
ical subordination and true obedience, to submit, not only in 
matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those 
that appertain to the discipline and government of the Church 
throughout the world, so that the Church of Christ may be one 
flock under one supreme pastor, through the preservation of 
unity both of communion and profession of the same faith with 
the Roman Pontiff. This is the teaching of Catholic truth, from 
which no one can deviate without loss of faith and salvation." 

Here it is declared as plainly as words can say it, that "no 
one can deviate" from or reject the notion that "the Roman 
Pontiff possesses the primacy over the whole world," and is ap- 
pointed, by the Lord to be the "true Vicar of Christ, and head of 
the whole Church," "without loss of faith and salvation." If 
we do not believe it we cannot be saved. This is the plain and 
positive statement officially put forth by the last great Vatican 
Council held at Rome only 10 years ago. And the chapter which 
contains this statement closes with these w 7 ords : "If, then, any 
should deny that it is by the institution of Christ the Lord, or by 
divine right, that blessed Peter should have a perpetual line of 
successors in the primacy over the universal Church, or that Hie 



3 2 THE PAPACY. 

Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy, 
let him be anathema." 

All this is plain enough. The Pope claims to be by divine 
appointment and right, the head of the Church, and therefore 
essential to its existence. It cannot be disbelieved without loss 
of salvation. And all who deny it, are anathematized with eter- 
nal damnation. All this is very clear. No Pope, no Church. 
No Pope, ho salvation. 

Now, we come up squarely to this statement, and deny it in 
toto. We say it is false from beginning to end. There is no 
ground of truth for it either in the scriptures, or in history. It 
is wonderful what a huge fabric is here erected, that is so base- 
less as to any foundation for it to rest upon. 

Let us examine its pretensions. If this is proved to be false, 
the whole system falls. It is the vital point, kill it, and the 
whole dies. It is the head of the papal system, by its own con- 
fession. Cut it off, and there remains a headless corpse. 

1. This decree says that it "rests on plain testimonies of the 
sacred writings." How is this? Does it? If so, where? We ex- 
amined, on last Sunday Evening, St. Paul's Epistle to the Church 
at Rome, the only inspired Epistle addressed to that Church, and 
you will bear me witness, that it says nothing of the kind. Where 
does St. Paul allude, even in the most distant degree, to any thing 
of the kind? Does he give intimation, in the faintest measure, 
of a Pope at all ? of a Yicar of Christ? of a primacy of Peter and 
his successors over the whole world? of a human head of Christ's 
Church ? It is incredible that he should ignore it, so completely 
as he does, if it is a dogma of the Christian religion, so essential 
to salvation, as this decree declares it to be. If no one can "de- 
viate from it without loss of faith and salvation," as this decree 
declares, how could St. Paul omit to mention it, in an Epistle, 
the whole end and object of which is to teach the way of faith 
and salvation ? How can St. Paul be excused for not giving it 



THE PAPACY, 33 

;;he prominence which would be due to it, if the denial of it, on 
the part of any, would subject them to God's anathema, and the 
eternal damnation which, of course, results from God's anathema? 
That St. Paul does not even allude to it in the remotest degree, 
in this Epistle to the Church at Rome, especially sent to instruct 
them in faith and salvation, is conclusive evidence that it is not 
true ; that it is false ; that it has no warrant of God's word to 
rest upon. This, of course, is negative testimony, but so strong 
as to amount to positive proof. 

But let us look still further at the claim that this Romish 
dogma, "rests on plain testimonies of the sacred writings." 

The text declares positively that Christ forbade that one of 
the Apostles should be lord over the others. He wants no lord- 
ship. He denounces the desire for it, as a heathen wish. He 
declares that such lordship is such as the heathens exercise. It 
must not exist in the Christian Church. His Apostles must have 
none of it. Now, this popish decree is a direct and positive con- 
tradiction of Christ. It says that one Apostle must be lord over 
the others. It declares that such lordship is of divine appoint- 
ment. Christ, the Son of God says, No. Rome says, Yes. No 
contradiction could be more palpable. Christ calls it a Gentile, 
heathen custom. Rome calls it the very head and front of 
Christian doctrine. Christ denounced it, and said it must not 
be tolerated in His Church. Rome says no one can be saved 
that does not believe it, and all will be damned who deny it. 
As between Christ and Rome the issue is squarely made. Which 
shall we believe, Christ or Rome? 

On another occasion, when this same evil passion had mani- 
fested itself among the disciples, Christ most effectually rebuked 
it, by taking up a little child and setting it in the midst of them, 
and declaring that unless they became converted from this evil 
heart, and became like this little child in its unambitious feel- 
ings, they could not only not be greatest, but would not even 

3 



34 THE PAPACY. 

enter into the kingdom of heaven. And in the very face of this 
action and declaration of the Lord of the church himself, comes 
this miserable decree of the Popes, and declares directly the 
verse, that none can get into the kingdom of heaven, but those 
who believe that Christ appointed Peter to be the greatest of the 
disciples, lord over the others, and primate over all the churches 
in the whole world. It would seem that this was uttered in 
direct defiance of the Lord's most positive prohibition. Christ 
says : None shall be greatest among you. Rome says, Peter shall be 
the greatest among you. Whom shall we believe, Christ or Rome ? 
We have a notable passage written by St. Paul concerning his 
own relation to Peter, and the other Apostles, and to the liberty 
from any pontifical control which he asserted for himself and 
others, and even for the boldness with which he rebuked Peter 
for his dissembling and want of straight forward honesty, that is 
directly to the point which we are now discussing. He says, 
Galatians 2nd chapter : "Then fourteen years after (the begin- 
ning of his ministry) I went up again to Jerusalem with Barna- 
bas, and took Titus with me also. And I went up by revelation, 
and communicated unto them the Gospel which I preach among 
the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest 
by any means, I should run, or had run in vain. Rut neither 
Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be 
circumcised. And that because of false brethren unawares 
brought in, who came in privily to spy out my liberty which we 
have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage. To 
whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour, that the 
truth of the Gospel might continue with you. But of those who 
seemed to be somewhat, whosoever they were, it maketh no 
matter to me ; God accepteth no man's person, for they who 
seemed to be somewhat, in conference added nothing to me. 
But contrariwise, when they saw that the Gospel of the uncir- 
cumcision was committed to me, as the Gospel of the circumci- 



THE PAPACY, & 

sion was unto Peter ; (For he that wrought effectually in Peter 
to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in 
me toward the Gentiles :) And when James, Cephas and John, 
who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given 
unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellow- 
ship ; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the 
circumcision. * * * But when Peter was come to Antioch, I 
withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For 
before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles, 
but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, 
fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other 
Jews dissembled with him ; insomuch that Barnabas also was 
carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that 
they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel, 
I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest 
after the manner of the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why 
compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?'' 

This is a very suggestive passage. It teaches many things. 
It teaches us : 

1. St. Paul was neither ordained nor confirmed nor established 
by St. Peter, nor does he in any way acknowledge Peter as 
necessary to confirm him. On the contrary he directly opposes 
the idea that he owed any allegiance or subjection of any kind 
to St. Peter. He neither received any thing from St. Peter nor 
was dependent in any respect upon St. Peter. If St. Peter was 
Pope by divine appointment, St. Paul would never have spoken 
of himself, or of St. Peter in the independent strain in which he 
indulges. 

2. He freely preached the Gospel a long time before he had 

any interview with St. Peter, or held any consultation with him 

about what he was to preach. He would not have done this, if 

St. Peter was Pope and head of the whole church throughout 

the world by divine right. It would then have been his duty to 

3* 



3 6 THE PAPACY. 

have consulted St. Peter before he took the first step in his 
ministry. 

3. He charged St. Peter with dissimulation, and called him 
publicly to account for it, before the whole church. This was a 
strange reversing of things, if St. Peter was the Pope, the Vicar of 
Christ, the Primate of all the Apostles, and the head of the church 
in the whole world. The subject called his master to account! 
The subordinate charged his lord with sin ! Would St. Peter have 
submitted to all this, if he had been divinely appointed to be 
Pope? No, never. He would very quickly have showed St. 
Paul his proper place. 

4. John, and Peter, and James are expressly mentioned to- 
gether as equals. They were "of reputation," it is true and 
"seemed to be pillars," but James was not the lord over John, 
nor Peter over James. John and James were equally "pillars" 
with Peter. They were equals. None was even "primus inter 
pares" — first among equals. They were wholly equals. St. 
Peter had no primacy. 

5. St. Paul contended for "liberty." He would not surrender 
his "liberty" to any one, "no not for an hour." He acknowledged 
no right in St. Peter, or in any one else to hold him in "sub- 
jection." If St. Peter was Pope by divine appointment, St. Paul 
not only asserted his independence in a way very disrespectful 
to St. Peter, but offensive to Christ himself. If Christ had ap- 
pointed St. Peter to be primate, then he had divine authority, 
and it was in St. Paul, not only a defiance of St. Peter, but an 
offence against Christ, for him to declare in the bold way in 
which he did, that he w T ould "not give place" to any one, "no not 
for an hour," that he "withstood Peter to the face," and accused 
him of "dissimulation." If St. Peter was truly appointed by 
Jesus Christ to be Pope, St. Paul would never have either ex- 
pressed himself, or acted, in this way. 

It is very plain from these passages that the "sacred writings" 



THE PAPACY. 37 

do not teach the Romish dogma that Jesus Christ appointed "the 
blessed Peter," to be "the Prince of the Apostles, the true Vicar 
of Christ, and head of the whole Church, 11 and his successors 
after him, to inherit the same office. It is a groundless claim. 
It is a Romish fiction. It has no scriptural warrant When 
the papal decree declares that this dogma "rests on the plain tes- 
timony of the sacred writings,' 1 it utters what is not true. 

It may be replied, and it is replied that the proof of it is found 
in Christ 1 s declaration to St. Peter: "Thou art Peter, and on this 
rock I will build my church. 11 It requires a wonderful amount 
of overstraining, to get out of this passage, the huge dogma of the 
papacy, Peter the Pope, all his successors Popes, Primate of all 
ihe Apostles, Yicar of Ghrist, head of the whole Church in the 
whole world. These are extraordinary conclusions to draw from 
such premises. Peter is never called a "rock." It is expressly 
said : "And that rock was Christ." 1 Cor. 10, 4. The "Stone" 
which the builders refused, and which is become the "head of 
the corner," is not Peter, but Christ Peter himself says so. 
Acts 4: 10, 11. 1 Peter 2: 4—8. All this is very clear. 

When it is said that the Church is built on the "foundation 
of the apostles and prophets," it is their doctrine, and not their 
persons, that is meant. The whole of the Apostles are expressly 
mentioned, and not one of them alone. The plain meaning is, 
that all the Apostles and prophets, being inspired of God, and 
preaching the doctrines of Christ by divine inspiration, the Church 
is built not on human opinions, but on divine doctrines, taught 
by divine authority, and by divinely inspired men. Every Chris- 
tian Church at its organization was based on these doctrines, 
laid them down as the principles on which the congregation was 
founded, and the members being well grounded in these doctrines, 
and holding them firmly, the Church was "built on the founda- 
tion of the Apostles and prophets." We say, the Church is 
founded on the Word of God, and by that expression we mean 



$8 THE PAPACY, 

the doctrines of the Apostles and prophets, as God revealed His 
holy Word through them to the world. Peter of course was one 
of the holy Apostles. What he taught was true and divine. When 
a church was organized and founded on the divine doctrines 
which he taught, it had a divine foundation. But the same was 
true of all the other Apostles. It was equally true of James, and 
John, and Paul, and all the rest. It was as true of them as of 
Peter. Not more true of Peter, than of James, and John, and 
Paul. They were all "Apostles and prophets." The Church 
was built, not on one of them alone, but on all of them. They 
believed as Peter believed, that Jesus was "the Christ the Son of 
the living God." They held the same divine doctrine, and made 
the same noble confession of it. Peter, on this occasion, was only 
their spokesman, and the confession of one was the confession 
of all. All this is very plain, and it is wonderful that any in- 
telligent reader of the scriptures, desirous of being rightly in- 
structed, and not having a special object to bolster up, could 
possibly misunderstand it. 

Not only Protestant divines hold this view of this address of 
our Lord to Peter. It is so obviously the correct view, that fair 
minded Roman Catholic writers themselves, are compelled to 
express the same views. Let me cite for the information of my 
hearers an extract from a w T ork by a learned Roman Catholic 
author, written only ten years ago, entitled the "Pope and the 
Council." It is a work of great ability, and of unusual fairness. 
Says the writer: "Of all the fathers (of the first 450 years after 
Christ) who interpret these passages in the Gospel, Matth. 16: 
18 and John 21 : 17, which contain the words of Christ to Peter, 
not a single one applies them to the Roman Bishops as Peter's 
successors. How many fathers have busied themselves with 
these texts, yet not one of them whose commentary we possess, 
Origen A. D. 230, Chrysostom 370, Hilary 360, Augustine 390, 
Cyril 350, Theodoret 400, — not one of these, and many others, 



THE PAPACY, 39 

jhas dropped the faintest hint, that the primacy of Rome is the 
consequence of the commission and promise to Peter! Not one 
iof them has explained the "rock," or foundation, on which 
Christ would build His Church, of the office given to Peter to be 
transmitted to his successors ; but they understood by it either 
Christ himself, or Peter's confession of faith in Christ, or both 
|| together. Or else, they thought that Peter was the foundation 
equally with all the Apostles, the twelve being together the 
foundation stones of the Church, as it is said in Rev. 21 : 14, 
"And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them 
the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb." The fathers 
could the less recognize in the power of the keys, and the power 
of binding and loosing any special prerogative or lordship of 
the Roman Rishop, inasmuch as — what is obvious to any one at 
first sight — they did not regard a power first given to Peter, and 
afterwards conferred in precisely the same words on all the 
Apostles (Matthew 16: 19, 18: 18.) as any thing peculiar to him, 
' or hereditary in the line of Roman Rishops." * 

These are true and honest words. There is no question of 
their correctness. The claim of the Popes, founded on this de- 
claration of Christ to Peter, is an afterthought. It was not so 
understood by Christ, or by Peter, or by any of the other Apos- 
tles. It was not so understood by the Church for 450 years 
after Christ, or until Leo I. first gave it this application. It was 
pressed into a service that is wholly foreign to its original design. 
The Rishop of Rome had grasped power, and he wanted some 
excuse for his inordinate ambition, and he pressed this passage 
into his service, by misconstruing its meaning, and misapplying 
it to another object than that for which it was uttered. All in- 
telligent and fair minded biblical interpreters, whether Protestant 
■or Roman Catholic, understand the case to be so. 

I think this disposes of the argument that the pretentions of 
*J The Pope and the Council, page 74. 



40 THE PArAC\. 

the Roman Pontiff are founded upon the scriptures. The script- 
ures certainly know nothing of a Pope. If the belief in the di- 
vine appointment of a Pope, or primate of the Apostles, or Vicar 
of Christ, or human head of the Church in the whole world, was 
such an essential doctrine, that our salvation depended on it, and 
that the rejection of it made it certain that we would be damned, 
as this decree of the Vatican Council asserts, we surely would 
have more of it in the New Testament, than these few faint in- 
dications, that are only obtained by pressing them out of 
their original application. But except in these, which certainly 
have another meaning and application altogether, we have in all 
the books of the New Testament not a word. In all St. Paul's 
Epistles we have not a word. Even in the two Epistles of St. 
Peter himself we have not a word. This would be inexplicable 
if, as the Roman dogma asserts, our eternal salvation depended 
on it. We may be sure that the whole thing is — what shall I 
call it? Will you consider me uncharitable if I call it a huge 
falsehood ? Pardon the strong assertion. But it is not too strong. 
Judged in the light of the "sacred writings," the whole thing is 
really a huge falsehood. 

2. But the Vatican decree founds the pretensions of the Roman 
Pontiff upon History, as well as upon the "sacred writings." 
Let us see what History says on this subject. In order to do 
away with all prejudice against the historical facts which I will 
cite, I will quote mainly from Roman Catholic sources. No one 
can, therefore, charge the proof I will call forth as being tinct- 
ured by Protestant prejudices. 

First. It is a fact of history that the Bishops of Rome did not 
convoke any General Council of the Church during the first three 
or four centuries after Christ. The first Council that met at 
Jerusalem during the lifetime of James and Paul, to deter- 
mine some questions relating to the circumcision of the Gentile 
converts to Christianity, was not called by St. Peter, nor did St, 



THE PAPACY. 4 i 

Peter preside at it as its President. St. James presided, and 
pronounced the "sentence" of the Council. "All great Councils 
to which Bishops came from different countries were convoked 
by the Emperors, nor were the Bishops of Bome ever consulted 
about it before hand." * If the Bishop of Bome had been di- 
vinely appointed head of the Church, and Vicar of Christ on 
earth, he alone would have authority to call a General Council 
of the Church. The Church of Bome now, never presumes to 
convoke a General Council except by the Pope. If St. Peter had 
been Pope he would, of course, have done the same. That he 
convoked no Council is conclusive proof that he was not Pope, 
and that no General Council was ever called by the Bishops of 
Bome until after many centuries after Christ, is equally proof 
that the Bishops of Bome were not then Popes. 

Secondly : It is a fact of history that not only were General 
Councils held during the early centuries after Christ, without 
being convoked by the Bishops of Bome, but they were not "al- 
lowed to preside personally, or by deputy, at the General Coun- 
cils'' thus convoked without their authority. "At Nice in A. D. 
325, at the two Councils of Ephesus in A. D. 431, and 449, and 
at the Fifth General Council in A. D. 553 assembled at Constan- 
tinople, others presided. Only at Chalcedon A. D. 451, and at 
Constantinople A. D. 680 did the legates of the Bishop of Bome 
preside. And it is clear that the Bishops of Bome did not claim 
this as their exclusive right, from the conduct of Leo I. in send- 
ing his legates to Ephesus, although he knew that the Emperor 
had named, not him, but the Bishop of Alexandria to preside." f 
This fact is proof positive that the Bishops of Bome were not of 
divine right, and by divine appointment, the primates of all 
others, and heads of the Church in the whole world, otherwise 
it would have been a criminal usurpation of their divine preroga- 



'") The Pope and the Council, page 63. f) Ibid. 



42 THE PAPACY, 

tive to deny them the rig] it, either in person, or by deputy, to 
preside at the General Councils. 

Third : It is a fact of history that "neither the dogmatic nor 
the disciplinary decisions of these councils required the confir- 
mation of the Bishops of Rome, to give them validity, for their 
force and authority depended on the consent of the Church, as 
expressed in the synod, and afterwards in the fact of its being 
generally received. The confirmation of the Nicene Council by 
Sylvester, Bishop of Rome, was afterwards invented at Rome, 
because facts would not square with the newly devised theory."* 
This fact is proof that the Bishops of Rome were not the primates 
over the other Bishops, Vicars of Christ by divine right, and heads 
of the Church in the w r hole world. If they were, none could 
have denied them the prerogative to confirm the decisions of 
Councils, nor would those decisions have had validity without 
such confirmation. 

Fourth: It is a fact of history that '"'for the first thousand years 
after Christ no Bishop of Piome ever issued a doctrinal decision 
intended for, and addressed to the whole Church. Their doc- 
trinal announcements, if designed to condemn new heresies, 
were always submitted to a synod, or were answers to inquiries 
from one or more Bishops. They only became a standard of 
faith, after being read, examined, and approved at an oecumen- 
ical Council." f This fact is a direct argument against the pre- 
tension that the Pope is such by divine appointment and right, 
and is primate, and Vicar of Christ who represents Jesus Christ 
as the head of the Church in the whole world, and is the infal- 
lible teacher and guide of men in the faith. 

Now these four great facts of history, thus clearly laid down, 
and attested by a learned and candid Roman Catholic author, 
cannot be questioned. They are facts. They are conclusive as 
against the papal pretentions. 

*) The Pope and the Council, f) Ibid. 



THE PAPACY. 43 



Dr. Schaff, in his "History of the Vatican Council," has in- 
vestigated this subject with his accustomed careful research. The 
results which he announces, are sound and conclusive. As they 
furnish great strength to my argument, I will quote some pas- 
i sages at length. He says : 

"Ancient Greeds, Councils, Fathers, and Popes can be sum- 
moned as witnesses against the Vatican dogma. 

"1. The four oecumenical Creeds, the most authoritative ex- 
pressions of the old Catholic faith of the Eastern and Western 
Churches, contain an article on the 'holy Catholic and Apostolic 
Church,' but not one word about the Bishops of Rome, or any 
other local church. How easy and natural, yea, in view of the 
fundamental importance of the Infallibility dogma, how necessary 
would have been the insertion of Roman after the other predi- 
cates of the Church, or the addition of the article ; 'The Pope 
of Rome, the successor of Peter and infallible Vicar of Christ.' 
If it had been believed then as now, it would certainly appear at 
least in the Roman form of the Apostles' Creed ; but this is as si- 
lent on this point as the Aquilejan, the African, the Gallican, 
and other forms. 

"2. The oecumenical Councils of the first eight centuries, which 
are recognized by the Greek and Latin Churches alike, are equally 
silent about, and positively inconsistent with, Papal Infallibility. 
They were called by Greek Emperors, not by Popes ; they were 
predominantly, and some of them exclusively, Oriental ; they 
issued their decrees in their own name, and in the fulness of 
authority, without thinking of submitting them to the approval 
of Rome ; they even claimed the right of judging and condemn- 
ing the Roman Pontiff, as well as any other Bishop or Patriarch. 

"In the first Nicene Council there was but one representative 
of the Latin Church (Hosius of Spain) ; and in the second and 
fifth oecumenical Councils there was none at all. The second 
oecumenical Council (381), in the third Canon, put the Patriarch 



44 THE PAPACY. 

of Constantinople on a par with the Bishop of Rome, assigning 
to the latter only a primacy of honor ; and the fourth oecumeni- 
cal Council (451) confirmed this canon in spite of the energetic 
protest of Pope Leo I. 

"But more than this : the sixth oecumenical Council, held 
680, pronounced the anathema on Honorius, 'the former Pope 
of old Rome 1 , for teaching officially the Monothelite heresy ; and 
this anathema was signed by all the members of the Council, 
including the three delegates of the Pope, and was several times 
repeated by the seventh and eighth Councils, which were presided 
over by Papal delegates. 

"3. The Fathers, even those who unconsciously did most 
service to Rome, and laid the foundation for its colossal preten- 
tions, yet had no idea of ascribing absolute supremacy and in- 
fallibility to the Pope. 

"Clement of Rome, the first Roman Bishop of whom we have 
any authentic account, wrote a letter to the Church at Corinth — 
not in his name, but in the name of the Roman congregation ; 
not with an air of superior authority, but as a brother to brethren 
— barely mentioning Peter, but eulogising Paul, and with a clear 
consciousness of the great difference between an Apostle, and a 
Bishop or Elder. 

"Ignatius of Antioch, who suffered martyrdom in Rome un- 
der Trajan, highly as he extols Episcopacy and Church unity in 
his seven Epistles, one of which is addressed to the Roman 
Christians, makes no distinction of rank among Bishops, but 
"treats them as equals. 

"Irenaeus of Lyons, the champion of the Catholic faith against 
the Gnostic heresy at the close of the second century, and the 
author of the famous and variously understood passage about 
the potentior principalitas (proteia) ecclesiae Romanae, sharply 
reproved Victor of Rome when he ventured to excommunicate 
the Asiatic Christians for their different mode of celebrating 



THE PAPACY, 45 

Easter, and told him that it was contrary to Apostolic doctrine 
and practice to judge brethren on account of eating and drink- 
ing, feasts and new moons. Cyprian, likewise a saint and a 
martyr, in the middle of the third century, in his zeal for visible 
and tangible unity against the schismatics of his diocese, first 
brought out the fertile doctrine of the Roman See as the chair 
of St. Peter and the centre of Catholic unity ; yet with all his 
Romanizing tendency he was the great champion of the Episco- 
pal solidarity and equality system, and always addressed the 
Roman Bishop as his 'brother,' and 'colleague' ; he even stoutly 
opposed Pope Stephen's view of the validity of heretical baptism, 
charging him with error, obstinacy, and presumption. He never 
yielded, and the African Bishops, at the third Council of Carthage 
(256) emphatical endorsed his opposition to Stephen. Firmilian, 
Bishop of Caesarea, and Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, like- 
wise bitterly condemned the doctrine and conduct of. Stephen, 
and told him that in excommunicating others he excommunicated 
himself. 

"Augustine is often quoted by Infallibilists on account of his 
famous dictum, Roma locuta est, causa finita est — i. e. Rome 
has spoken, the case is ended. But he simply means that since 
the Councils of Mileve and Carthage had spoken, and Pope In- 
nocent I. had acceded to their decision, the Pelagian controversy 
was finally settled (although it was after all, not settled till after 
his death, at the Council of Ephesus.) Had he dreamed of the 
abuse made of this utterance, he would have spoken very 
differently." * 

This sententious utterance of Augustine is abused by being 
misapplied even to this day. The "causa" — case — was this. 
The heresy of Pelagius was vigorously opposed by Augusline. 
The doctrines of Pelagius were condemned as heretical by the 



) SchafFs Hist. Vat. Council, pages 92 — U4. 



46 THE PAPACY. 

Eastern Church, in the Councils of Mileve and Carthage held in 
Africa. It was appealed to the Western Bishops, against the 
decision of the African Bishops who both in the Councils of 
Mileve and Carthage warned the Western Bishops not to receive 
the appeals from their decrees, and that they should send no 
more legates or commissaries to them. Still the appeal was re- 
ceived, and Coelestius the associate of Pelagius appeared person- 
ally in Rome to plead the cause of Pelagius. When, however, 
Augustine and the African Bishops heard through Innocent I. 
the Bishop of Rome, that the majority of the Western Bishops 
too, had condemned Pelagius, he triumphantly exclaimed: I 
"Rome has spoken 1 ' — we have heard from the Western Bishops, 
and they too have decided against Pelagius — "ihe case is ended 1 ' 
— the condemnation of Pelagius is complete. The expression 
does not mean, as Romanists now use it, "The Pope is infallible, 
his dictum ends all controvercy, and the whole Church must 
submit to what lie says." Well does Dr. Schaff pronounce this 
an "abuse" of his utterance, of which Augustine never "dreamed" 
when he made it. Says Bishop Strossmayer: "That the Patri- 
arch of Rome had, from the earliest times, tried to draw to him- 
self all the authority, is an evident fact; but it is an equally evi- 
dent fact, that he had not the supremacy, which the Ultramon- 
tanes attribute to him. Had he possessed it, would the Bishops 
of Africa, St. Augustine first among them, have dared to prohibit 
the appeals from their decrees to his supreme tribunal?" When 
this sentence from Augustine is construed in the light of the 
warning of this Council, of which Augustine was Secretary, it 
has a very different meaning from that which Romanists now 
give to it. 

It may interest my hearers to hear more of the celebrated 
speech ascribed to Bishop Strossmayer, Bishop of Bosnia and 
Sirmia, and delivered in the Vatican Council. Many Bishops, 
who during the discussion of the Infallibility dogma, spoke 



THE PAPACY. 47 

| against it with great boldness, backed down after it was adopted, 
j recanted all that they had said, and made their peace with the 
| Pope. It is even said that Strossmayer, "the boldest of the bold 
I in the minority," has since denied that he even "said one word 
j to diminish the authority of the holy see." But this speech is 
no doubt authentic, nevertheless. Its historical facts, by whom- 
j soever uttered, cannot be disputed. He said : "Precedence is 
one thing — the power of jurisdiction is another. For example, 
supposing that in Florence there was an assembly of all the 
Bishops of the Kingdom, the precedence would be given to the 
primate of Florence, as among the Easterns it would be accorded 
to the Patriarch of Constantinople, and in England to the Arch- 
bishop of Canterbury. But neither the first, nor the second, nor 
the third could deduce from the position assigned to them a ju- 
risdiction over their colleagues. 

"The importance of the Bishops of Borne proceeded not from 
a divine power, but from the importance of the city in which 
they had their seat. 

"I have said that from the very first centuries the Patriarch 
of Borne aspired to the universal government of the church. 
Unfortunately he very nearly reached it; but he had not succeeded 
assuredly in his pretensions, for the Emperor Theodosius II. 
390 made a law by which he established that the Patriarch of 
Constantinople should have the same authority as he of Borne. — 
Leg. cod. de sacr. etc. 

"The Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon 451 put the bishops 
of the new and the old Borne in the same order on all things, 
even ecclesiastical (Can. 28.) 

"The Sixth Council of Carthage forbade all the Bishops to 
take the title of Prince of the Bishops or Sovereign Bishop. 

, "These authorities, and I might add a hundred more of equal 
value, do they not prove with a clearness equal to the splendor 
of the sun at noonday, that the first Bishops of Borne were nyt 



48 THE PAPACY. 

till much later, recognized as universal Bishops, and heads of 
the Church ? And on the other hand, who does not know, that 
from the year 325, in which the first Council of Nice was held, 
down to 580, the year of the second oecumenical Council of 
Constantinople among more than 1109 Bishops who assisted at 
the first six General Councils there were not more than nine- 
teen Western Bishops ? 

"I come now to speak of the great argument used to establish 
the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. 

"By the rock (pietra) on which the Holy Church is built, you 
understand Peter (Pietro.) If this were true, the dispute would 
be at an end; but our forefathers — and they certainly knew 
something — did not think of it as we do. 

"St. Cyril 350 in his fourth book on the Trinity, says — 'I be- 
lieve that by the rock you must understand the unshaken faith 
of the Apostles. 1 St. Hilary, Bishop of Poictiers in his second 
book on the Trinity says : — The rock (pietra) is the blessed and 
only rock "of the faith confessed by the mouth of St. Peter; 1 and 
in the sixth book of the Trinity, he says : 'it is on this rock of 
the confession of faith that the Church is built. 1 'God, 1 says St. 
Jerome in the sixth book of St. Matthew, 'has founded His 
Church on this rock, and it is from this rock that the apostle 
Peter has been named. 1 After him, St. Chrysostom says in his 
fifty-third homily on St. Matthew, 'on this rock I will build 
my Church— that is, on the faith of the confession. Now what 
was the confession of the Apostle ? Here it is — Thou art the 
Christ, the Son of the living God. 1 

"Ambrose, the holy Archbishop of Milan, 380 on the second 
chapter of the Ephesians, St. Basil, of Seleucia, 360, and the 
Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon, 451, teach exactly the same 
thing. 

"Of all the doctors of Christian antiquity, St. Augustine, 390, 
occupies one of the first places for knpwledge and holiness, listen 



THE PAPACY. . 49 

then to what he writes in his second treatise on the first Epistle 
of St. John, 'What do the words mean, I will build my Church 
on this rock? On this faith, on that which said, Thou art the 
Christ, the Son of the living God.' 

"In his 124th treatise on St. John, we find this most signifi- 
cant phrase: 'On this rock which thou hast confessed I will 
build my Church, since Christ was the rock.' 

"The great Bishop believed so little that the Church was built 
on St. Peter, that he said to his people in his 13th Sermon, 
'Thou art Peter, and on this rock (pietra) which thou hast con- 
fessed, on this rock which thou hast known, saying: Thou art 
Christ, the Son of the living God, I will build my Church above 
myself, who am the Son of the living God ; I will build it on me, 
and not on thee.' 

"That which St. Augustine thought upon this celebrated pas- 
sage, was the opinion of all Christendom in his time. Therefore, 
to resume I establish. — 

"1. That Jesus Christ had given to His Apostles the same 
power that He gave to St. Peter. 

"2. That the Apostles never recognized in St. Peter the Vicar 
of Christ and the infallible doctor of the Church. 

"3. That St. Peter never thought of being Pope, and never 
acted as if he were Pope. 

"4. That the Councils of the first four centuries, while they 
recognized the high official position which the Bishop of Rome 
occupied in the Church, on account of Rome, only accorded to 
him a pre-eminence of honor, never of power, or of jurisdiction. 

"5. That the holy fathers in the famous passage, 'Thou art 
Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church,' never under- 
stood that the Church was built on Peter, (super Petrum) but on 
the rock (super petram) that is, on the confession of the faith of 
the Apostle. 

"I conclude victoriously with history, with reason, with logic, 



50 



THE PAPACY. 



with good sense, and with a Christian conscience, that Jesus 
Christ did not confer any supremacy on St. Peter, and that the 
Bishops of Rome did not become sovereigns of the Church but 
only by confiscating one by one all the rights of the Episcopate. 
. "History is neither Catholic, nor Anglican, nor Calvinistic, 
nor Lutheran, nor Arminian, nor Schismatic, nor Greek, nor 
Ultramontane. She is what she is — that is something stronger 
than all Confessions of Faith of the Canons of the Oecumenical 
Councils." 

The rise and progress of the papacy is a mere human event, 
a gradual growth a usurpation of power, a consummation of the 
ambitious aspirations of proud men, the result, too, of the poli- 
tical rivalry of the different parts, and great cities, of the R.oman 
Empire. In the course of the ages, the bishops of such cities as 
Jerusalem, Antioch. Alexandria, Constantinople, and Rome, and 
others, aspired to higher positions, and claimed greater respect, 
and honor, and power, than the bishops of other cities. And 
particularly during the long contest between the Eastern and 
Western parts of the Roman Empire, the Bishops of Constanti- 
nople and of Rome, alternately claimed precedence, until the 
contest was finally settled by the Emperor Phocas, who in A. 
D. 606 declared in favor of the Bishop of Rome, by giving him 
the title of "Caput omnium ecclesiarum," or head of all the 
churches. It was by no divine appointment at all. It was the 
result of intensely human feelings. It \yas a high pinnacle aimed 
at by ambitious men, and when they reached it, it was by human 
and not by divine methods. Christ's words to Peter, "on this 
rock I will build my church," conferred no divine appointment, 
and imparted no divine right. The use of them was an after- 
thought. A reason was wanted for an unreasonable thing, a 
justification for a grasping ambition, and these words answered 
the purpose better than any thing else at command. 

The history of the rise of the papacy is an interesting chapter 



THE PAPACY. 5 i 

in Ecclesiastical History. Let me dwell at some length upon it. 
One of the most candid and accurate Church historians is. Dr. 
John Henry Kurtz, Prof, of Theol. in the University of Dorpat, 
Livonia, Russia. I will take him from among other ecclesiasti- 
cal historians, as my chief authority in the statements I will now 
proceed to make. 

In the Apostolic age of the church, the Apostles ordained pas- 
tors in newly organized churches, who bore the common name 
of Elders, or Presbuteroi, from their age and dignity, and of 
Bishops, or Episcopoi, from the nature of their office. Originally 
these two terms designated the same persons, as we learn from 
the New Testament, from Clement of Rome, and others. In 
the Second Century, the Episcopate became more and more a 
settled institution in the Church. As time passed, the Bishops 
of the chief cities, acquired more and more power and authority 
The Bishops of towns took precedence of those in rural districts 
so too, the Bishops of capital cities, called Metropolitans, ac 
quired precedence over those of provincial towns and cities 
The first time that the title Metropolitan, occurs in Church His 
tory, is in the decrees of the Council of Nice in A. D. 325. There 
came to be also gradually a distinction among metropolitans. 
Those who presided over such Churches as had been organized 
by the Apostles themselves, as for example Jerusalem, Antioch, 
Ephesus, Corinth, Rome, and Alexandria, deemed themselves 
entitled from that fact, to take precedence, and claim pre-eminence 
over others who were not founded by the Apostles. In A. D. 
312 Constantine the Roman Emperor became converted to the 
Christian faith, and was the first Christian Emperor. The fact 
of the Emperor of the great Roman Empire being a Christian, 
gave greatly increased interest to the rivalry among the Metro- 
politan Bishops. Up to this time, the pre-eminence lay between 
the three Bishops of Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome. The 

Second General Council held at Constantinople, in A. D. 381, 

4* 



52 



THE PAPACY. 



assigned to the Bishop of Constantinople the first rank after the 
Bishop of Rome. The Bishop of Constantinople bore the title 
of Patriarch. The Bishop of Rome refused this title in or- 
der not to be on the same level with the Bishop of Constantinople, 
and therefore, chose in preference the title Papa, in Greek Papas. 
The contest now mainly lay between the Bishops of these two 
chief cities. When the Emperor held his imperial court at Rome 
the Roman Bishop was in the ascendency. Rome, too, was on 
account of its natural situation, as the only great city in the West, 
the seat of both political and ecclesiastical power. When the 
Emperor resided at Constantinople, the Bishop of that city claimed 
the pre-eminence. The Fourth General Council held at Chalce- 
don, A. D. 451 placed the Patriarch of Constantinople on a foot- 
ing of perfect equality with his colleague of Rome. The same 
Council also raised the Bishop of Jerusalem, whom the Council 
of Nice had in A. D. 325 already declared as entitled to special 
honors, to the dignity of Patriarch, and invested him with su- 
premacy over the whole of Palestine. Still, some Metropolitans, 
and among them especially those of Salamis in Cyprus, of Milan 
in Italy, of Aquileia and of Ravenna both also of Italy, refused 
to acknowledge that their Sees were, in any sense, subject either 
to the Patriarch of Constantinople, or to the Papa of Rome. No 
doubt, too, the continued residence of the Western Emperors at 
Rome from A. D ? 395 to 476, eighty one years, and during the 
duration of the Western Empire, had also much to do with the 
increase of the power and authority of the Bishop of Rome. From 
the sixth Century the Papas of Rome began to confirm the elec- 
tion of oriental Metropolitans by sending them the insignia, 
called the Pallium. Still, the Bishop of Rome was not yet ac- 
knowledged as primate or chief of all the other Metropolitan Bish- 
ops. From this period it was considered to be necessary for the 
validity of a General Council, that all the five Patriarchs of Je- 
rusalem, of Antioch, of Alexandria, of Rome, and of Constanti- 



THE PAPACY. S3 

nople, should be represented in it. But when the Saracens, the 
Mohammedans, overran the East, and the Mahomet's Crescent 
took the place of the cross, and the churches were turned into 
mosques — when in A. D. 637 Jerusalem, and in 638 Antioch, and 
in A. D. 640 Alexandria became subject to them, the Patriarch 
of Constantinople remained the sole representative of that dig- 
nity in the eastern portion of the Roman Empire. His Roman 
colleague was his only rival. But Constantinople was no longer 
able to compete with Rome. Rome's pretensions to the primacy 
had rapidly grown into favor, and as early as A. D. 606 the 
murderer and usurper Phocas, the Emperor, had settled the 
seemingly interminable dispute by interdicting the use of the 
proud title, "Episcopus universalis," or Universal Bishop, by 
the Bishop of Constantinople, and by acknowledging the Bishop 
of Rome as "Caput omnium ecclesiarum," or head of all the 
Churches.* 

Such is a rapid, but truthful, and reliable sketeh of the rise 
and progress of the papacy. I have with care and impartiality 
examined the claim of the Roman Pontiff both as it is professedly 
based in the decree of the Vatican Council on the "sacred writ- 
ings," and on the verdict of History. What are the conclusions 
which we have reached ? 

1. The Romish pretension in behalf of the Papacy is not 
sustained by the Word of God. The Vatican decree declares 
that it rests upon "the plain testimonies of the sacred writings." 
We have failed to find them. There is no such Word of God. 
On the contrary, the Word of God directly condemns the entire 
principle on which the papacy rests. Christ did not so organize 
His Church. No "Thus saith the Lord" was ever uttered in be- 
half of it. Christ wanted no lordship among His Apostles. 
Rome positively contradicts Christ. Christ and Rome are 



*) Dr. Kurtz's Text Book of Church History, pages 165—169. 



54 THE PAPACY. 

squarely in opposition to each other. We hold with Jesus 
Christ. We have no fellowship with Rome. 

2. The early ages of the Church knew nothing of the primacy 
of the Bishojis of Rome. This is as clear as any fact ever settled 
by the verdict of History. If this is not made plain, then there 
is nothing historically reliable. For several centuries not one of 
the Bishops of the great cities and centres of influence, made any 
pretension whatever to be preeminent over others, or to take 
precedence of the others. When in course of the centuries this 
claim was made by any one of them, it was resolutely and 
squarely denied by the others. Particularly there is not a word 
in any of the fathers that this claim was made in behalf of St. 
Peter and his successors. Candid Roman Catholic writers them- 
selves testify to this fact. The claim of the Vatican Council, in 
this respect, is a fable from the beginning to the end of it. 

3. TJie Papacy was a gradual growth amid the conflict of hu- 
man passions in the breasts of ambitious men. It would seem 
that no reader of History can fail to see this. Power passed from 
the many to the few. The Bishops of the chief cities claimed 
precedence over the rural Bishops. Then the f struggle commenced 
among themselves. For a long time the contest lay between 
Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople and Rome. Then it nar- 
rowed itself down to a duel between Constantinople and Rome. 
Finally Constantinople was beaten, and Rome triumphed. This 
is briefly the history of the Papacy. It is so plainly written on the 
pages of History, that even a blind man can hardly fail to see it. 

4. TJie true faith and the true Church do not include the 
Papacy as a necessary fart of it. The true faith was held 
for 'centuries, and the true church existed for centuries, when 
there was no primate, nor vicar, nor human head of the Church. 
The true faith and the true Church do not need it. Christ is the 
only Head. He has not given His honor to another. He has not 
made a man His "Vice God/' as the Popes insolently style them- 



THE PAPACY. 55 

selves. Even Gregory the Great, one of the best and greatest of 
the Bishops of Rome, A. D. 590 — 604, "repudiated with horror" 
what is now "known as the Papal system," and "he would not 
endure that so wicked and blasphemous a title," as that of "Oecu- 
menical Patriarch" should be "given to himself, or to any one 
else."* Now, the decree of the Vatican Council very compla- 
cently says : "All the faithful of Christ must believe that the 
Roman Pontiff possesses the primacy over the whole world, and 
that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, Prince 
of the Apostles and is true Vicar of Christ, and head of the whole 
Church, and father, and teacher of all Christians." We shud- 
der at such an arrogant claim made by a mere human being. 
Well may this Vatican decree speak of "hierarchical subordina- 
tion" — "officio hierachicae subordinationis." It is indeed, and 
by its own confession, the most despotic hierarchy that ever 
placed its iron heel upon the necks of men. The true faith, and 
the true Church will have none of it. 

5. The decree of the Vatican Council that declares that no 
one can reject its dogma concerning the papacy "without loss of 
faith and salvation' 1 '' and that anathematizes all who deny it with 
eternal damnation, is utterly untrue and pernicious. How 
baseless this arrogant assumption is, I trust, all understand, who 
have' followed me in the argument of the present discourse. 
Rome has lost none of its bitter, intolerant, persecuting spirit. 
It unchurches all Christians in the whole world, and anathema- 
tizes with eternal damnation, all believers in Christ, and profes- 
sors of His holy name, every where on the earth, east and west, 
who do not bow the knee to the Baal which it enthrones, and 
whom it requires all men to own and worship. It ought to re- 
quire more than the insidious eloquence of a wily Jesuit to al- 
lure intelligent Protestants into the admission of claims so arro- 
gant, and so preposterous. 

*) The Pope and the Council, page 68. 



DISCOURSE III. 



DOCTRINES OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 

Matthew 15 : 9. — Teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. 

In my two previous discourses on Romanism I have discussed 
as thoroughly as is at this time deemed necessary, the claims of 
the Roman Pontiff to be the successor of St. Peter, the primate 
of all ministers, the Vicar of Christ on earth, and head of the 
church in the whole world. Although the decree of the Vatican 
Council declares that "none can deviate from" this dogma "with- 
out loss of faith and salvation," and anathematizes all who deny 
it, I think it must have been clear to all who followed the dis- 
cussion of it, that the dogma is not sustained either by scripture, 
or by Church History. 

I propose in the present discourse to enter into the interior of 
the Romish system, and examine some of the peculiar doctrines 
that distinguish it. A religious system is known by the doctrines 
it holds. All who belong to it are supposed, of course, to hold 
these doctrines. The Roman Church has its peculiar doctrines. 
We may know what they are. It is very possible that some 
persons who are led into the Church of Rome, do not investigate 
its doctrines as carefully as they should. It is also to be feared 
that the most repulsive of those doctrines are glossed over in 
such a way that their real nature is not always understood. I 
will make no charges that are not well sustained. I will refer 
to official sources for information concerning them. 

It will be borne in mind that we are preaching these sermons 
in self-defence. We have been severely attacked, and we are 
defending ourselves from the attack. We dare not be silent 
when truth is attempted to be overthrown. 



DOCTRINES OF THE CHURCH OF R OME. 57 

The years move on, and # men change, but principles, whether 
true or false, do not change. The Reformation is as much 
needed now, as it was when Luther nailed the 95 Theses on the 
Church door at Wittenberg. The conflict between Rome and 
the Reformation, is an irrepressible conflict. Romanism is 
really the same now as ever. It is its boast that it never 
changes. In a purely Protestant community, we do not see Ro- 
manism as it is exhibited in Italy, Spain, Mexico, and other 
countries. Its ugly features are kept back. It will not bear ex- 
amination. It expresses itself very freely about us. Let us ex- 
amine it with the same freedom. 

1. The Council of Trent has placed the apocryphal books on 
an equality with the inspired Word of God. It has done this 
because the apocryphal books apparently give countenance to 
some of the false doctrines and practices of the Church of Rome. 
But the apocryphal books are no part of the inspired Word, and 
never were. Some of them are useful as ancient writings, but 
they have no valid claim to be ranked among the inspired Books 
of the Bible. The reasons against the divine inspiration and 
canonical authority of the Apocrypha are these : None of them 
are extant in Hebrew, all of them are in the Greek language, 
except the Fourth Book of Esdras, which is in Latin. They 
were all written after the prophetic vision closed in Malachi. 
The last chapter of Malachi indicates that no prophet would ap- 
pear until John the Baptist. The Jews unanimously agree that 
the prophetic spirit ceased with Malachi. All the apocryphal 
books were written after the Old Testament canon was closed. 
Not one of the writers of these apocryphal books makes any 
claim to divine inspiration. They were never received into the 
sacred canon by the Jewish Church, as all the other books of 
the Bible are. Christ never sanctioned them. Not a single 
quotation from them is to be found in Christ's discourses, or in 
the Gospels and Epistles of the Apostles, as from the other books 



SS DO CTRINES OF THE CHUR CH OF R OME. 

of the Old Testament. Both Philo and Josephus, the well known 
Jewish historians, who flourished in the first century of the 
Christian era, are silent concerning them. They are not men- 
tioned in the catalogue of inspired writings made by Melito, 
Bishop of Sardis, who flourished in the second century, nor in 
those of Origen in the 3rd century, of Athanasius, Hilary, Cyril 
of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Gregory Nazienzen, Amphilochius, 
Jerome, Rufinus, and others, all of the 4th century. Jerome ex- 
pressly says that they were read "for example of life, and in- 
struction of manners, but were not applied to establish any doc- 
trine," and declares "the Church does not receive them among 
the Canonical books." This was said by the translator of the 
Bible into the Latin Vulgate, the only version of the Bible which 
the Romanists acknowledge, and therefore, his testimony ought 
to be conclusive. Notwithstanding, these and other testimonies 
against them, the apocryphal books were put into the Bible by 
the Roman Council of Trent only since the Reformation. But 
they are no part of the Word of God, and never were. And the 
reason of their admission by the Council of Trent, seems to be, 
that they wanted some proof that it is proper to pray for souls in 
purgatory, and they found something in the second book of 
Maccabees that appeared to favor it. But this book was not 
written by any inspired prophet, is the work of some Hellenistic 
Jews of Alexandria, contradicts the first book of Maccabees, is 
unchronological and inaccurate in its facts, and is at variance 
with the inspired Word of God. It is wholly unreliable, for any 
statement of doctrine, and its relation of facts must be received 
with great caution.* The inspired scriptures only, "are profita- 
ble for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, and for instruction 
in righteousness." The Aprocrypha is not. 

2. The Roman Church regards oral tradition as of equal 



*) See Home's Introduction, Vol. 1. and 4. 



D OCTRWES OF THE CHURCH OF R OME. S9 

authority with the written Word of God. Indeed, it would 
seem, as if they held tradition not only of equal, but of superior 
authority, to that of the Word of God. If a direct and positive 
statement of God's Word is quoted in refutation of any of their 
dogmas, they prefer their Church's tradition, rather than the 
positive declaration of God's Word to the contrary. The short 
answer is: The Church says so, and that is enough for me. Since 
the late Vatican Council has voted the dogma of Papal Infalli- 
bility, every Romanist, to be consistent, must take this ground. 
He needs no other Rule of Faith. He has in the Pope a perpet- 
ual divine oracle. "He may say, I believe, not because Christ, 
or the Bible, or the Church, but because the infallible Pope ha& 
so declared and commanded." The Pope "as God, sitteth in the 
temple of God, showing himself off that he is God." As in the 
time of Christ "they make the Word of God of none effect by their 
tradition." The arguments against the Romish doctrine of oral 
tradition, among others, are these: 1st. The Scriptures do not 
ascribe authority to oral tradition. What St. Paul means by the 
passage (2 Thess. 2:15 and 3 : 6.) is all his instructions, oral 
and written, communicated to those very people themselves, not 
handed down. On the other hand Christ rebuked this doctrine 
of the Romanists in their predecessors, the Pharisees, Matth. 15 ; 
3, 6. Mark 7:7. 2nd. There is no reason why God would sup- 
plement the sure Word of God with a rule of faith so variable and 
unfixed as tradition. His Word is certain, definite, complete, 
and perspicuous, whereas tradition, from its very nature is in- 
determinate, and liable to become adulterated with every form 
of error. 3d. The authority of scripture does not rest on tradition, 
as Romanists assume. We receive the Scriptures as the Word 
of God not on the authority of tradition, but because God spake 
by the mouth of the Apostles and prophets as is evident from the 
nature of their doctrine, from their miracles, from their prophecies, 
and from our personal experience and observation of the power 



60 DOCTRINES OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 

of the truth. Even if the fact assumed was true viz. that we 
know the scriptures to be from God, on the authority of the 
Church's testimony alone, the conclusion sought to be deduced 
from it would be absurd. The witness who proves the identity 
or primogeniture of a prince, does not thereby acquire a right to 
govern the kingdom, or even to interpret the will of the prince. 
4th. The whole ground upon which Romanists base the author- 
ity of their tradition, is invalid. History utterly fails them, as 
for more than three hundred years after the apostles they have 
very little, and that contradictory, evidence for any one of their 
traditions. 5th. Their practice is inconsistent with their own 
principles. Many of the earliest and best attested traditions they 
do not receive. Many of their pretended traditions are recent 
inventions unknown to the ancients. 6th. Many of their tradi- 
tions, such as relate to the priesthood, the sacrifice of the 
Mass, and many others, are plainly in direct, opposition to the 
scriptures.* 

We do not need Romish tradition. We have in the sure 
Word of God, a certain and safe rule of faith. "If they speak 
not according to this word," we can detect the error. The word 
of man may deceive me. Oral tradition may not be faithful or 
reliable. God's Word, I know to be true and certain. I know 
oral tradition to be deceptive. I cannot trust my salvation 
upon that. 

3. The Church of Rome has a very defective doctrine con- 
cerning the nature of original sin, or the natural depravity of 
the human heart. In the doctrinal system of Rome, "original 
sin is not an inborn evil or sin, but merely a defect, an incum- 
brance which has come upon us from Adam, but of ourselves 
we are not involved in sin and inherited wrath." "The scho- 
lastics treat of original sin, as if it were but a trivial, slight de- 



*) Hodge's Outlines of Theology. 



DOCTRINES OF THE CHURCH OF R OME. 6/ 

feet, and do not understand what original depravity is, or in 
what light the holy Fathers considered it." "In speaking of 
original sin, they omit the most essential part of it, and take no 
notice at all of our real and principal misery, namely, that we 
human beings are all born with such a nature, that we neither 
know, see, nor observe God or his works, that we despise him, 
that we do not fear nor trust in him' sincerely, and that we hate 
his judgments." * It is therefore with them only "an inborn 
weakness of nature," and not sin. It is a very superficial, shal- 
low thing, as they define it. Instead of the great evil that it is, 
it is represented only as a weakness. It is almost excused by 
this Semi-Pelagian definition. Instead of this half apology for 
sin, hear the full, positive definition of it as uttered in our Augs- 
burg Confession : "All men who are naturally engendered, are 
conceived and born in sin, that is, they are all from their moth- 
er's womb, full of evil desires and propensities, and can have by 
nature, no true fear of God, no true faith in God; and this innate 
disease or original sin, is truly sin, which brings all those under 
the eternal wrath of God, who are not born again by Baptism, 
and the Holy Spirit." Here is a definition that means some- 
thing. It is what the Word of God teaches. It puts man very 
low down, and makes him depend for all his justification and 
holiness on the grace of^God alone. No wonder that, with such 
lax views of sin, Rome makes justification to be by works. 
Here is the secret of the evil of nearly all that follows, in the 
Romish system. It starts out with wrong and defective views 
of the evil in man's heart, that grace is to make good. It makes 
man naturally better than he is. The remedy then is superfi- 
cial, because the evil is so. Man can work out, by his own 
merits, his salvation, because there is not so much to work out. 
It flatters human pride, whereas the Scriptures, and our Evan- 



Melancbthou, Apol. Augs. Conf. Art. Orig. Sin. 



62 DO CTRINES OF THE CHUR CH OF R OME. 

gelical doctrine, humble man in the dust, from which only the 
unmerited grace of God can lift him up. In the Evangelical 
system, original sin is sin. In the Romish system it is only a 
weakness. This difference accounts for every thing that follows. 
If man is not very sick, it does not require much to make him 
well. 

4. The Roman Church teaches "according to her Semi-Pela- 
gian theory, that man is justified not by faith alone, but by works 
also" On the subject of justification, the doctrine of the Re- 
formation and that of Rome are directly antagonistic. The dis- 
tinction between them is vital. The one is of faith only, the 
other is of works also. The one is of Christ's righteousness 
alone, the other is of human merit also. The one is all of God, 
the other so largely of man as to overshadow that which is of God. 
In its practical working in the heart, the one makes Christ's right- 
eousness all, and the other places human merits on the top. 

Hear our noble Augsburg Confession on the doctrine of justi- 
fication : "We cannot obtain righteousness and the forgiveness 
of sin before God, by our own merits, works, and atonement, 
but we obtain the remission of sins, and are justified before God, 
by grace, for Christ's sake, through faith, if we believe that Christ 
suffered for us, and for His sake our sins are remitted unto us, and 
righteousness, and eternal life are bestowed on us." These are 
noble words, and teach a most precious doctrine of salvation for 
us poor sinners. This doctrine alone, can give true peace to the 
heart. It is the doctrine of Christ, of Paul, of Peter, of all the 
Apostles. It is the doctrine of the Fathers, of the primitive 
Church, of all who hold the true faith of the Gospel. It was 
long buried under the rubbish with which the Church of Rome 
had covered, and hidden from sight, for so many ages, the pure 
Gospel of Christ. It was brought out from its obscurity by 
Luther, and forms the keynote of the Reformation. It is the 
great article by which the true Church must stand or fall. 



D O CTRINES OF THE CHUR CH OF R OME. 63 

Says the great Danish Theologian Dr. Martensen : "The doc- 
| trine of Justification by faith alone, is rightly looked upon, as the 
! corner stone of the creed of the Evangelical Church because in 
I it the Reformers laid hold upon that which makes Christian 
1 faith a saving faith. This doctrine' 1 is the great doctrine of Christ, 
and His holy Apostles, is Christ's righteousness reckoned to the 
\ humble believer as his own, and though long lost in the teach- 
j ing of the Church, was restored to the world "in the 16th cent- 
! ury. It not only led men back to the true source of doctrine, 
the Word of God, but it also led them back to the inmost and 
living source of religious consciousness, which in the Romish 
church had been for the most part hidden beneath the rubbish of 
tradition and human teaching. Pelagian objections against this 
doctrine spring from a conscience which has never really ex- 
perienced the sense of sin — which has not experienced the 
struggle in which man alone learns to feel the absolute majesty 
of the law, that holy ideal far above him, by Which alone in the 
consciousness of unworthiness and guilt, man feels himself sur- 
rounded by the terrors of eternity ; a conflict which may vary 
outwardly according to the varieties of human character, but 
whose inward reality none can be ignorant of, who personally 
participates in the blessings of salvation. As to the Romish 
Church, she has weakened the high solemnity of this doctrine by 
her Semi-Pelagian theory, and this theory she must confess, has 
been practically renounced in the stern realities of life and death, 
by many of her very members, who, in the inmost experience 
of their souls, have borne witness to the efficacy of the evangeli- 
cal doctrine." 

This is a very important fact. The Church of Rome rejects 
the doctrine in her creed, but thousands of devout and earnest 
souls, even in her own communion, who want belter food to 
nourish and comfort them, than that which her professed system 
furnishes, have struggled up from darkness into light, and through 



64 DOCTRINES OF THE CHURCH OF ROME, 

the superincumbent errors that envelope them, and find in this 
doctrine the practical relief which they need. 

"Not only," continues Martensen, "have the great teachers of 
the middle ages, an Anselm, and a Bernard, not only have the 
host of witnesses who are called forerunners of the Reformation, 
given thefr testimony for this doctrine, but the history of the 
pastorate, the cure of souls, within the Romish Church, abun- 
dantly proves that the evangelical doctrine alone can give real 
comfort to troubled and helpless consciences. Thus it brought 
peace to Luther, when, as a monk, and experiencing great strug- 
gles of soul, he was referred to St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans 
by an old Augustinian brother, in proof that a man is justified 
by faith without the deeds of the law. Even the custom in the 
Romish Church, of holding a crucifix before the dying, symbol- 
izes this doctrine. For what else could this custom mean, if it 
has any meaning at all, and is not a mere superstition, except 
that the man now in the solemn hour of death, must rely, not 
upon his own merits, not upon the merits of the saints, but 
solely upon the crucified Christ, as the Only Mediator?" * 

This doctrine is so true, and so fully meets the great want of 
the soul, that even Roman Catholics cannot be prevented by the 
errors with which their system surrounds it, from seeing its 
truth, and experiencing its preciousness. How much happier 
would they be if the impurities that obscure it were removed, 
and they could see and enjoy it in true scriptural light and beauty 
as held and experienced in the Protestant Church. 

5. The Church of Rome requires compulsory enumeration of 
all sins in confession, and assures those who confess, of the 
efficacy of priestly absolution, irrespective of the disposition of 
those who confess. No man has the right or the power to for- 
give sins, but God only. A minister as God's messenger of 



*) Martensen's Christian Dogmatics. 



D OCTRINES OF THE CHUR CH OF R OME. 63 

mercy and peace to men, may say to penitent and believing men, 
"your sins are forgiven of God, for Christ's sake.' 1 But this is 
declarative only. It is the Gospel promise of mercy announced 
to those who by faith accept it. It declares the divine promise 
of pardon to those who truly repent of their sins, and believe in 
Christ This is proper. We preach "repentance and remission 
of sins, in Christ's name, to all nations." To "preach remis- 
sion," is to console the broken-hearted, who mourn with godly 
sorrow on account of their sins, with the assurance from God's 
Word, that Christ has forgiven them their sins. They may not 
doubt it. This the Lutheran Church has always held and always 
practiced. Such "absolution, however, is nothing but the Gos- 
pel, a divine promise of grace, and the favor of God, to truly 
penitent and believing hearts." {Melantlithon } s Apology.) 

Romish Confession and Absolution is quite a different thing 
from this. It is a compulsory, slavish, enumeration of all sins, 
great and small, to the priest, in auricular confession, "0 how 
miserably have they perplexed and tormented many a pious soul, 
by teaching that confession must be complete, and that no sin 
dare remain unconfessed, for how can we ever be sure that we 
have confessed all?" (Melanckthon's Apology.) It is a grievous 
burden upon the conscience. It worms out of timid, shrinking, 
sensitive persons the secret thoughts, and most hidden feelings 
of their hearts, and thus ensnares their consciences. It becomes 
an engine of intolerable oppression. It does violence to the 
modesty of virtue. It puts people under the power of an un- 
scrupulous priest. The Confessional in the Romish Church is a 
dark and polluted chapter on the pages of History. It diverts 
attention from repentance toward God, to the enumeration of 
sins to man. It changes the true feeling of hearty sorrow and 
confession to God, into the fear, anxiety, and apprehension in- 
separable from a verbal enumeration of offences at the confes- 
sional, to a listener on the other side of the separating partition. 

5 



66 DO CTRINES OF THE CH UR CH OF R OME. 

It diverts the mind from the hope of forgiveness from God to the 
absolution pronounced by a man. It ascribes the efficacy of for- 
giveness not to faith in Christ, but to the word of a priest. It 
leads the person confessing to rely upon the act performed, ex 
opere operato. It leads impenitent and unreformed men to a 
state of security in the perpetration of sins. . It takes repentance 
out of the heart and places it upon the lips. It is a strong temp- 
tation to deception. It lulls the consciences of sinners to sleep. 
It "makes God submissive to the priests, whose pronouncements 
of forgiveness God must acknowledge, even when they absolve 
men whom God's righteousness could not absolve, or when they 
refuse absolution to men whom the grace of God would certainly 
forgive. It teaches men to believe that God has surrendered his 
judgment into the hands of fallible priests, who have to contend 
with their own passions, and yet who, according to their own 
contracted views and the everchanging emotions of the human 
mind, can bestow grace, and invoke wrath, and consequently, 
eternal salvation, or everlasting misery upon their fellow men. 
Forgiveness is a transaction between the divine love and the 
heart of the sinner. The sinful priest dare not interfere between 
them, and prescribe to the love of God, whose sins should be 
forgiven, or whose should be retained. This is superstition, in 
which God is made an idol, which draws away the heart of the 
sinner from God, and fixes upon man, the priest. 1 '* It changes 
evangelical repentance into priestly imposed penances, endured. 
It is followed by "acts of atonement performed by the penitent, 
which are prescribed by man, as necessary to the expiation of 
punishment and are trusted in as a compensation for guilt." It 
leads to the notion of meriting the forgiveness of sins by penances 
imposed and submitted to. It quiets the aroused consciences of 
criminals, who feel secure that the priest will not inform on them, 



*) Bretschneider's Henry and Antonio. 



DOCTRINES OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 67 

and they make an easy bargain by undergoing penance, and re- 
ceiving pardon. Says Bretschneider, "In order to be saved, a 
mere verbal acknowledgment of sins is required, or the 'external 
evidences' of a 'proper state of mind' upon which this efficacious 
absolution always follows. This is very convenient for persons 
of high and low degree, who indeed wish to die happy, but al- 
so wish to spend their whole lives in dissipation. In what sense 
does this confession in the Romish Church redeem men from 
sin? She forgives sins without end, and secures the sinner from 
the punishment of them in eternity without it being at all ne- 
cessary that he should be delivered from the dominion of sin. 
He can tranquilly indulge his lusts and evil desires, all his days, 
the Priest who carries the keys of heaven will without fail un- 
lock the gates for him in his dying hour. Is it not plain that 
thus the genuine reformation of men is really superfluous, and 
that absolution in the Romish Church does not promote the ob- 
ject of Christianity, which is to reform men, and make them 
»ew creatures in Christ Jesus, and then only to promise them 
forgiveness and eternal life ? Is it not plain that Confession as 
practiced in the Romish Church is an institution which delivers 
men, not from the dominion of sin, but rather lulls the consciences 
of sinners to sleep, and yet after all, by the power of the priest, 
conveys the most depraved to heaven ? Is there any thing of 
blessed efficacy in this priestly power ? No, no it is not saving 
but ruinous, and leads not to salvation but to destruction."* 
These are the earnest words of one who knew well whereof he 
affirmed. 

6. The Roman Church teaches according to the decree of the 
Council of Trent, that "the Mass is an unbloody sacrifice, in 
which the priest offers to God the same Christ who hung upon 
the cross, as an atonement for sins and trangressions even if they 



*) Bret,3chneider's Henry and Antonio, 

5* 



68 D OCTRINES OF THE CHUR CH OF ROME. 

be enormous." It is further declared that in this sacrifice of 
the Mass, "the priest offers not only for the sins of the living,, 
and in the place of punishments and penances, and for other 
necessities, but also for the departed but not yet wholly purified 
souls in purgatory." 

"The principal idea which lies at the bottom of the whole 
affair is this, that the priest in performing the service of the 
Mass, offers the body of Christ as a sacrifice to God anew/' 

Now, we deny the whole thing in toto. St. Paul expressly 
declares : "We are sanctified through the offering of the body 
of Christ mice for all." It is once for all. Not often but once. 
The atonement was made once, and needed not to be made again. 
It was made by Christ himself, and is complete. "It is finished,' 7 
as Jesus himself said of it r on the cross. It is declared again 
and again, by St. Paul, and by St. Peter, that Christ offered him- 
self "once" — not often, but once only. Not a single passage from 
the New Testament can be shown, in which it is said, or even 
intimated that the sacrifice of Christ is to be repeated. On tile 
contrary it is expressly reasoned by St. Paul that the sacrifice of 
Christ differs from the priestly offerings of the old Testament in 
this, that whereas they had to be made often, Christ's sacrifice 
was only made once, and that sufficed for all, completed the 
whole system of sacrifices for sin, "made an end of sins T " finished 
the atonement, and opened the holy of holies for all the world. 
The application of the atonement to men by the Holy Ghost, goes 
on to the end of the world, but the atonement itself by the one 
sacrifice of Christ, was finished by his death, and is not repeated. 
If there is any thing clearly taught in the scriptures, it is this. 
The Church of Rome in this sacrifice of the Mass, comes up 
squarely to the Word of God, and contradicts it. The Word of 
God says : Christ was offered "once for all." Rome says, No. 
The Word of God says "once." Rome says thousands on thou- 
sands of times. Christ said : "It is finished." Rome says : it 



D O CTRINES OF THE CHUR CH OF R OME. 69 

s not finished. Between Rome, and Christ and His Word, there 

J is a direct contradiction. We believe Christ. We do not believe 

i Rome. St. Paul says of Christ: "By one offering he hath per- 

j fected forever them that are sanctified." Rome says: No, they 

; are not perfected forever, they must first pass through the fires 

of Purgatory, where they are purified and perfected, and by the 

sacrifice of the Mass, they are lifted out of purgatorial fires, and 

j are placed among the sanctified in heaven. I cannot conceive 

how any two systems could be more directly contradictory of 

each other, than are those of Ghrist and Rome. 

But how did it come to be so? The early Church knew noth- 
ing of priestly sacrifices, under the New Testament dispensation. 
The Lord's Supper was not a sacrifice in which Christ was of- 
fered. It knew nothing of Purgatory, from which souls were 
released by the sacrifice of the Mass. All these things came 
with the lapse of ages, as corruptions crept into the Church. 

"From the 4th Century onward the Bishops in the Christian 
Church, were regarded as counterparts of the Old Testament 
priesthood, they were no longer considered to be, what the 
Apostles ordained that they should be, viz. preachers of the Gos- 
pel, teachers of truth, examples of piety, and overseers of the 
Church. But they were regarded as mediators between God 
and man, who sacrifice to God for men, make God propitious, 
and thus procure for them grace and pardon from God. 

"And this is now the principal distinction between the Pro- 
testant and the Romish worship. The service in Protestant 
Churches consists mainly in the reading of God's Word, confes- 
sion of sin, praise and thanksgiving, and preaching of the Gos- 
pel, by which faith is promoted, the mind is informed, devotion 
an the heart is awakened, the will is inclined to forsake sin and 
live holy, and the soul is led to Christ and to trust in His re- 
demption made on the cross for salvation. On the contrary, the 
Romish service is almost wholly sacerdotal, priestly, and is in- 



7<y DOCTRINES OF THE CHURCH OF R OME. 

tended mainly to propitiate God and render Him gracious, as if 
He was not gracious in Christ, before. Preaching is in it a 
subordinate service, at every service there is required the sacri- 
fice to be offered, and this is performed by the priest's celebrating 
the Lord's Supper for himself, and thus a continual sacrifice is 
offered to God," * as if Christ had not offered that sacrifice on 
the cross "once for all." On these plain declarations that Christ 
offered himself "once for all,'" and that "by one offering he hath 
perfected forever them that are sanctified," we reject entirely the 
whole system of priestly sacrifices offered by the Church of Rome- 
in the Mass. The Mass is no propitiatory sacrifice. It is absurd 
to regard the priestly eating and drinking the Lord's Supper in 
the view of the Congregation, or privately, as offering Christ as 
a propitiatory sacrifice. It requires a lively imagination to see- 
any such sacrifice in the thing. Through the Lord's Supper as 
a means of grace, God conveys to us, not we to God. In it He 
gives His body and blood to us. We offer no sacrifice of His 
body and blood to Him. The Mass is no unbloody sacrifice in 
which the priest offers Christ to God. This is a sad perversion 
of the nature of this holy sacrament. 

Particularly we reject the pretense that this sacrifice of the 
Mass releases souls from Purgatory. We believe in no Purga- 
tory. There is no Purgatory. Jesus and His Apostles, who so 
often, and extensively speak of a future state, and have brought 
life and immortality to light, say not a word about Purgatory. 
If Purgatory existed they would not have ignored it so completely" 
as they do. When they describe the state of the soul after death ? 
they do it in sueh a way as proves that there is no Purgatory for 
pious souls. Of poor Lazarus Jesus says : "And it; came to pass- 
that the beggar died and was carried by angels into Abraham's 
bosom." He did not go into Purgatory to be tortured with fire. 



*■) Bretschnside^ 



DOCTRINES OF THE CHURCH OF ROME, 7/ 

j font into Abraham's bosom where he was "comforted." To the 
I thief on the cross Jesus said: "To-day thou shalt be with me in 
! Paradise." This man was a robber, whose soul, we might 
I think, was less purified than that of a godly man. He went 
i through Christ's mercy, into Paradise, and not into Purgatory. 
i St. Paul said that when he would be absent from the body he 
! would be "present with the Lord, which is far better." St. Paul 
j did not expect to go to Purgatory before entering heaven. He 
expected to go at once to be "present with the Lord." When 
the Romanists refer to Maccabees in proof of Purgatory, we reply 
that the Book of Maccabees is no part of the inspired Word of 
God, but belongs to the Apocrypha. It is, therefore, worth no 
more than any other human opinion. An Apocryphal book can 
establish no Christian doctrine. The Saviour's declaration that 
the sin against the Holy Ghost "shall not be forgiven, neither in 
this world nor in the world to come" is quoted as proof for 
Purgatory. But even Romanists do not say that sins are forgiven 
in Purgatory, but that souis are purified by fire. St. Fulgentius 
of the 4th Century says of this passage : "By these words our 
Lord did not intimate that any sins will be forgiven in the world 
to come which have not been forgiven in this life." Thus one 
of the saints of the Roman Calendar directly contradicts the Ro- 
man interpretation of the passage. It is only a strong way of 
saying that the sin is never forgiven. The passage of St. Paul is 
quoted: "The fire shall try every man's work," as proof. But 
St. Augustine of the 4th Century gives the true explanation when 
he says: "The fire of tribulation shall try every man's work." 
The Word of God does not teach the Romish dogma of 
Purgatory. 

We reject Purgatory for the great reason: "It is derogatory 
to the doctrine of Christ's perfect redemption for us. If Christ 
died for us, and redeemed us from sin and hell, as the script- 
ures teach, then the idea of further meritorious sufferings detracts 



Ih 



7^ Z? OCTRINES OF THE CHURCH OF R OME. 

from the perfection of Christ's work, and places merit still in . 
the creature, which is directly contrary to the whole plan of sal- 
vation through Christ." St. John declares : "The blood of Jesus 
Christ, his son cleanseth us from all sin." Not from a few sins 
but from all — not from a part but from the whole. The true 
believer has Christ's perfect righteousness. He needs no better, 
and he can have no better righteousness. His righteousness is 
perfect, for it consists of Christ's perfect merits acquired by faith. 
He needs no Purgatory. In the wedding garment which Christ 
furnishes, he is fit to appear at once at the marriage feast of the 
Lamb. The song of the saved will be "Unto him that loved us, 
and washed us from our sins in his own blood." It is a thorough 
washing, from our sins, in his own blood. It leaves no stain. It 
cleanses. It cleanses from "all sin." It leaves none for Purgatory. 
It is effectually done. Not fire, but Christ's blood, does this. The 
soul that is "redeemed by Christ's most precious blood," "sancti- 
fied by the Holy Ghost" by the application of that blood, "cruci- 
fied with Christ so that the body of sin is destroyed," "delivered 
from the body of this death through our Lord Jesus Christ," and 
"purified by faith," needs nothing more to fit it for heaven. Its 
way to the skies at death is direct, and not by the fictitious, 
roundabout way of Purgatory. 

Purgatory is a fiction, and a fraud. "Masses cost money. The 
priests do not make it an easy matter to get out of Purgatory. One 
mass is not enough. The poor are oppressed to pay for masses. 
For the rich who can pay for many masses, many masses are 
said, and must be paid for. For rich princes, as in Roman Catholic 
countries, they are read by thousands." * A certain priest in Lan- 
caster, whose church was much in debt, issued an immense 
number of tickets for Masses, to pay off the debt. They were 
bought by the poor deluded people, in large numbers. If he said 
all the Masses for which he sold tickets, he was kept busy doing 

*) Bretsehneider, 



D CTRINES OF THE CHUR CH OF R OME. 73 

little else all his life time, and by speaking as fast as his tongue 
could utter, at that. I knew a poor man in my native place, who 
made his living by going about town selling apples. He was a 
devout Romanist. He died. His son who was also a Romanist, 
paid the priest sum after sum until it amounted to $24 to pray 
his father's soul out of Purgatory. He was a poor young man, 
and paid all that he could afford. The priest was still not satis- 
fied, declared that his father's soul was not yet out of Purgatory, 
and wanted more money. The eyes of the young man began to 
open to the imposture of the thing, and he came to the Lutheran 
pastor in whose study I was reading, to ask his advice, as to 
what he should do. The pastor told him the whole thing was 
a fiction, and a deception, that he should go home, and not pay 
the priest another penny for masses. He took his advice, and 
from that time forward abandoned Romanism altogether. 

It is a very uncomfortable doctrine. A few years ago, I read 
a notice of a Mass being said for the repose of the soul of one of 
their most prominent bishops, who had died many years before. 
I involuntarily exclaimed "What, is he not yet out of Purgatory ?" 
It will be remembered that after the death of Pio Nono, Masses 
were every where said for the repose of the soul of the Pope, the 
Vicar of Christ, and the infallible head of the Church in the 
whole world. There seems to be no positive salvation even for 
an infallible Pope. It is a very unsatisfactory doctrine. If we 
have Christ we do not want it. With it we never can be certain 
of salvation. Many years after our pious loved ones have died 
in the Lord, we cannot say that they are at rest. All is uncer- 
tainty. The priests leave us in dreary darkness. Rut so it is. 
When we once let go the good Word of God, and the sure way 
of salvation through faith in Christ's perfect redemption for us, 
we are out at sea, and the ministers of a false religion are mis- 
erable comforters. A wise man will not let himself be deceived 
by them. 



74 DOCTRINES OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 

7. The Roman Church through its Council of Trent says: 
"The Bishops shall teach that the Saints intercede with God for 
men, that it is good and useful humbly to invoke them, and to 
take our refuge in their intercessions, merits, and assistance, for 
the attainment of blessings from God through His Son Jesus 
Christ." The Romish Catechism says: "The holy Church with 
great propriety directs her thankful prayers and intercessions to 
the most holy mother of God, that she may by her intercessions 
reconcile us sinners to God, and obtain for us temporal and eter- 
nal blessings." This is strange language to utter and print for 
the eyes of intelligent Christian people. God says: '"'Call upon 
me in the day of trouble : I will deliver thee, and thou shalt 
glorify me." But Rome says : Call upon Mary and the Saints 
in the day of trouble, they will intercede with the Son, that He 
may intercede with the Father for you. This is a very round- 
about way when the true way is so direct. The Word of God 
says: "We have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the 
righteous." Rome says: We have Mary and the saints as ad- 
vocates with our Advocate to influence Him to do what he is 
seated at the right hand of the Father to do, to intercede with 
the Father. Our Advocate, Jesus Christ needs to be admonished 
of His duty as intercessor, by His mother and the saints. Neg- 
ligent intercessor ! Vigilant saints ! They love us better than He 
does, and by their prayers to Him, must stir up His sluggish 
love for us. Rome goes even further than this. By Mary's in- 
tercessions she "reconciles sinners to God." She takes the place 
of Christ. She is our Mediator. She reconciles sinners to God. 
She saves us. We need no other Saviour if she does all this. 
Mary is enough. Heaven save us from such perverted Chris- 
tianity ! 

It is wonderful to what extent Mariolatry is carried in the 
Church of Rome. A book was published in New York in 1852, 
with the approval of "John (Hughes) Archbishop of New York," 



DOCTRINES OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 75 

entitled "Glories of Mary." It was written by Alphonso de Lig- 
uori, who was enrolled at Rome as a saint in 1839, it being then 
declared by the Pope as a necessary condition of his being 
"canonized," that "there is. nothing censurable in any thing he 
has written." On the very second page of this book we find 
these words: "If Jesus is King of the whole world, Mary is also 
queen of the whole world ; therefore, says, St. Bernardine of 
Sienna, all creatures ivho serve God, ought also to serve Mary; 
for angels and men, and all things that are in heaven and on 
earth, being subject to the dominion of God, are also subject to- 
the dominion of the glorious Virgin. Hence Gueric, abbot, thus 
addresses the divine mother: 'Continue, Mary, continue in se- 
curity to reign. Dispose according to thy will of every thing be- 
longing to thy Son ; for thou being mother and spouse of the 
King of the world, the kingdom and 'power over all creat- 
ures is due to thee as Queen" — and so on through this whole 
book of 790 pages. Here are some such sayings with which it 
is filled: "All obey the commands of Mary, even God himself." 
(p. 202.) "Mary is omnipotent, since the queen, by every law, 
must enjoy the same privileges as the king. > ' (203.) "The prayer 
of Mary has the force of a command with Jesus Christ." (p. 729.) 
What shall we think of a Church which, so far from rebuking 
those who use such language as this, canonizes the author, pro- 
claims them saints, who are to be followed in their examples, 
and even prayed to themselves ? * 
. After I had preached this sermon, I was favored through the 
mail, by some unknown Romanist friend, with a copy of the 
October number of the "Ave Maria, a Catholic Journal devoted 
to the honor of the Mother of God," and published at Notre 
Dame, Indiana. From an article entitled: "The Divine Mater- 
nity of the Virgin Mary," I take the following extract: "In addi- 



: ) Both Sides, by Thomas S. Bacon. 



76 DOCTRINES OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 

tion to the title of the Mother of God, Holy Church has ever used 
from antiquity, and given to the Blessed Virgin, other honorable, 
and distinguished titles. Hence, according to tradition, Mary 
being acknowledged far more innocent and unspotted than all 
other virgins, is called Queen of Virgins {Regina Virginum.) 
She being also judged to have a faith more shining and perfect 
than that of the Patriarchs and Prophets, is called Queen of 
Patriarchs {Regina Patriar char urn) and Queen of Prophets 
{Regina Prophetarum.) The zeal of Mary being more ardent 
than that of the Apostles, she is called Queen of the Apostles 
{Regina Apostolorum.) The fortitude of Mary in her sufferings 
being superior to that of the Martyrs, she is styled Queen of 
Martyrs {Regina Martyrum.) The purity and love of Mary be- 
ing found distinguished and privileged above that of the angels, 
she is called Queen of Angels {Regina Angelorum.) All forms 
of sanctity being comprised in Mary, she is, as it were, the ocean 
of all created sanctity, and is therefore called Queen of all Saints 
{Regina Sanctorum omnium.) Besides, the Church, on account 
of the grace communicated to Mary by the Holy Trinity venerates 
her as Mother of divine grace; Mother, most pure, most chaste, 
undefiled, untouched, admirable; Mother the most renowned^ 
most perfect, most powerful, most merciful, most faithful. 
Moreover she is styled, Mirror of Justice, the Seat of Wisdom, 
the Cause of our Joy, the Spiritual Vessel, Vessel of Honor, the 
Illustrious Vessel of Devotion, the Mystical Rose, the Tower of 
David, tlie Tower of Ivory, the House of Gold, the Ark of the 
Covenant, the Gate of Heaven, the Morning Star, the Health 
of the Weak, the Refuge of Sinners, the Comforter of the Af- 
flicted, the Help of Christians. All these different forms of ad- 
dressing the Blessed Virgin Mary are found in the Litany which 
is generally sung by the faithful in all the Catholic Churches."* 



') Ave Maria, Oct. No. 1879, page 828. 



D CTRINES OF THE CHUR CH OF R OME. 77 

We are not uttering a Protestant slander, as we would in all 
probability be charged, by the publication of this extract. It is 
from a regular Romanist Journal, on the cover of which these 
words are printed : "The Ave Maria, a Catholic Family Magazine, 
blessed by our late Holy Father, Pius IX. by His Holiness Pope 
Leo XIII. and encouraged by Many Eminent Prelates." It is 
therefore, "By Authority." 

"A Rosary is a series of Prayers, and a string of beads, by 
which they are counted. A Rosary consists of fifteen decades. 
Each decade consists often x4ve Marias, marked by small beads, 
preceded by a Pater noster, marked by a larger bead, and con- 
cluded by a Gloria Patri." CWebster's Unabridged.) The 
Pater noster, is the Lord's Prayer — Our Father. The Ave Maria, 
is as follows : "Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee ; 
blessed art thou among women ; and blessed is the fruit of thy 
womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, 
now, and at the hour of our death. Amen." The Rosary con- 
sists, therefore, of decades, each decade containing eleven prayers 
besides the Gloria, which is not a prayer, but a song of praise. 
Of these eleven prayers ten are addressed to Mary, and one to 
God the Father — ten Ave Marias to one Pater noster. This is 
the proportion — ten to one — ten prayers to the Virgin for one to 
God. It is very humiliating to see intelligent men turn from the 
pure worship of God, through Christ, in the Protestant Church, 
and go to counting the beads on their Rosaries, and repeat ten 
Ave Marias to one Pater noster — ten prayers to Mary to one 
to God, mentioning in prayer Mary's name ten times to once 
that they mention the name of God. It is strange. This is called 
the 19th Century, and we live in a land of Bibles, and Schools, 
and Churches. But when a man shuts his eyes it is dark at 
noonday. 

To call on the name of God, is to worship Him. To call on 
the name Mary, is to worship her. And she is worshipped. In 



J8 DOCTRINES OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 

Roman Catholic countries, as in Italy, Spain, Mexico, South 
America, and others, "Mary is God, and worship is simply the 
adoration of the Virgin." Says an intelligent writer, who had 
been for some time a resident of Italy : "Mary is the first name 
that is lisped in childhood, the last that is uttered by the quiver- 
ing lips before they are closed in death. Around the neck of the 
infant just born, is suspended a small image of the Virgin. 
When the babe seeks the breast, it must first kiss the image, 
and thus literally does it draw in the adoration of Mary with its 
mother's milk. When that babe grows up to youth's estate, he 
beholds the shrines of the Virgin on every high way, in every 
street, in every church, in the theatres, in the courts of justice, 
in all conceivable places. To Mary he sees all knees bent, from 
those of the Pope in the Vatican, to those of the brigand on the 
Campagna. The supplicating whine of the wrinkled hag begging 
for alms at the Church door, is for the sake of Mary. The song 
of the peasant girl as she gathers the grape in the autumn is in 
praise of Mary."* From the highest to the lowest classes, pray- 
ers are offered to Mary, her praises are sung, her blessing is in- 
voked, her intercession is begged, her virtues are recited, and to 
her worship shrines are consecrated, and altars are erected. 
Where one prayer is offered to God, ten are offered to Mary. 

"He who seriously believes that Mary and the saints hear his 
prayers, must also believe them to be, and does believe them to 
be, omnipresent and omniscient beings. This necessarily fol- 
lows. Mary is invoked, and Ave Marias are said to her, in Italy, 
Austria, France, Spain, The West Indies, The Sandwich Islands, 
China, East India, North America, Ireland, Brazil, Mexico, all 
over the world, whereever there is a Romish Church. Either 
Mary must be a God present at all those places, at the same mo- 
ment, to hear those invocations, or she must be like God, om- 



) Dr. J. A. Wylie's Awakening of Italy 



DOCTRINES OF THE CHURCH OF ROME. 79 

niscient, to know all these prayers, sighs, and vows, otherwise 
she can know nothing of all these, and of course, can render no 
assistance."* 

What is this but to deify a creature? What is this but to assign 
divine attributes to a woman ? What is this but to make Mary 
a goddess? Is not this idolatry? If this is not the sin of idolatry, 
what is it? Idolatry is the worship of a creature, instead of, or 
more than, the Creator. Prayer to Mary, the uttering of Ave 
Marias, calling on Mary for her mediation and blessing, is wor- 
shipping her. It is worship rendered to a creature. Where ten 
prayers are offered to Mary to one that is offered to God, the 
creature is worshipped more than the Creator. This is the sin 
of idolatry. Cod save us all from the guilt, and the punishment 
of the dreadful crime of idolatry ! 

What is the result of our discussion to night? 

It is a fair and truthful exhibit. I have drawn from Romish 
sources, and quoted from their own official documents. That 
these are the doctrines of the Church of Rome cannot, and will 
not be denied. These are really the doctrines of the Church of 
Rome as I have stated them. Rome will not attempt to deny 
them. Rut as they are sore spots, she may attempt to cover them 
up, or gloss them over. Eloquent Jesuits, holding "Missions," 
may succeed in making "the worse appear the better reason." 
But earnest inquirers who are accustomed to examine all things 
thoroughly, by looking a little beneath the surface, are not so 
easily deceived. 

It may be appropriate to institute the inquiry : Do all who hold 
to the Church of Rome, really believe the doctrines officially taught 
by their own church ? It is perhaps doubtful. It would seem 
that intelligent minds are likely to profess their creed with large 
mental reservation. 



) Bretscbneider. 



80 DOCTRINES OF THE CHURCH OF R OME. 

But will well informed Protestants, exchange the sound doc- 
trines of the Word of God, renounce the true faith in which they 
have been reared, and in which their fathers lived and died, and 
adopt in their stead such unscriptural, corrupt, and superstitious 
notions, as those which we have discussed to night ? Is the 
Word of God nothing to them ? Is the faith of the Reformation 
nothing to them ? Is the example of godly and sainted fore- 
fathers nothing to them ? Is truth nothing to them ? Is the safety 
of their souls in life and in death, nothing to them ? Will they 
risk the comfort and peace of the true faith, and the true church, 
for a faith so false, and a church so unsound as the Church of 
Rome? 

It is commendable when we see a man rising from darkness 
up to light. But it is pitiful when we see a man descending from 
light down to darkness. 






DISCOURSE IV. 



ROME A PERSECUTING CHURCH. 

! Rev. 17 : 6. — Drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood 
of the martyrs of Jesus. 

JESUIT missionaries and Roman priests who advocate the 
claims of their Ghurch, say, among other things that instead 
\ of the Church of Rome being a persecuting Church, as is charged, 
she is the persecuted Church. To sustain this assertion they 
have referred, among others, to the riot that took place in Phila- 
delphia, many years ago, during the Native American excite- 
ment that then prevailed in this country. Three things were 
forgotten to be mentioned, however, in connection with that riot. 
First: that it was a riot by a mob, and not the action of the au- 
thorities either in Ghurch or State. Second : that it was put 
down by Protestants. Third : that the exciting cause that aroused 
the passions of the rioters, was the very fact that the church of 
Rome is a persecuting church. The knowledge of its intolerant 
spirit, and the fear that if it gained power, it would again, as in 
its past history, kindle the fires of persecution, here as elsewhere, 
were taken advantage of to inflame the passions of the multitude. 
Had Rome been the tolerant and non-persecuting church which 
she wishes us now to believe, there would have been no ma- 
terials for the inciters to the riot to work upon, and there would 
have been no riot. This proof quoted in behalf of the position 
that Rome is not a persecuting, but a persecuted church, fails 
utterly. 

The toleration of Protestants in Maryland by Lord Baltimore, 
the first Governor, who was a Roman Catholic, is also cited as 
a proof of the tolerant spirit of the Roman Ghurch. The facts, 



> 



82 ROME A PERSECUTING CHURCH. 

however, hardly warrant so strong a conclusion. After a con- 
test of several years with the colonists, and particularly with 
Clayborne of Kent Island., Lord Baltimore was compelled to 
concede to the colonists the right to initiate legislation, and frame 
their own laws. As the Romanists were then in the majority 
in the colony in 1639 the Assembly established the Roman 
Catholic religion as the State religion. The law establishing the 
Roman Catholic religion, as the religion of the State, granted, 
indeed, permission in words, to others than Roman Catholics, 
to worship God according to the dictates of their consciences 
but it at the same time, forbade Protestants, as well as Roman 
Catholics, to eat meat in Lent, under penalty of a fine. This, 
of course, was an intolerant act, and persecuted Protestants who 
followed the dictates of their consciences, in the matter of ob- 
serving Lent as prescribed by the Romish Church. In the mean 
time a large Protestant immigration entered Maryland, laid out 
the city of Providence, afterwards called Annapolis, and they 
became so numerous that the county of Anne Arundel was 
chiefly settled by them. In 1649, their influence was so largely 
felt, that by an Act of Assembly the offensive provision in regard 
to fasting in Lent, was repealed by a law which declared that 
"no person or persons whatsoever, professing to believe in Jesus 
Christ, shall from henceforth, be any way troubled, molested, 
or discountenanced for and in respect of his or her religion, 
against his or her consent." It was the Assembly that enacted 
this law of toleration, and its enactment was largely due to Prote- 
stant influence, that was already powerful in the State. The 
facts of the case diminish very much the credit which the Rom- : 
ish, Church takes to itself about it. 

It is rather a new, and hitherto unaccustomed language to 
hear from the lips of Romish priests, when they speak of the ■ 
virtues of toleration, and claim that they are the tolerant and 
the persecuted people. This is a new role that is being played 



ROME A PERSECUTING CHURCH. 83 

on the theatre of the world's history. We have all along been 
under quite a different impression. We still think that the 
former impression is the correct one. We would be very happy 
if this impression could be removed. We congratulate our 
Romish friends on the change of tone. We hope they will 
hold on to it. It would be a blessed change for the world, if 
the Church of Rome would cease to be the persecuting church 
which History informs us it has always been, since its Bishops 
have become Popes. We confess we are not sanguine however. 
We fear the old intolerant and persecuting spirit is still the in- 
herent and governing spirit of the system. 

Protestantism is tolerated in the city of Rome ; not very gra- 
ciously however. It was not tolerated there at all before the 
Italians themselves rose against their own Pope, and wrested 
his temporal power from him. Before that, Protestantism was 
kept outside the walls, or a Protestant service might be held in 
the legations under the flags of the United States, and of Eng- 
land, the symbols of liberty, not otherwise. It was only when 
Cadorna's cannon, fired by rebellious children of the Holy 
Father, battered down the gates of Rome, that Protestantism 
entered ; and it remains, because Cavour's noble maxim, "A 
free Church in a free State," directs the policy of the government 
of Victor Emanuel and his successor. No thanks to the Pope 
for that, however. He is as intolerant now as ever. He sulkily 
buried himself in the Vatican, and protests to this day against 
all that has occurred. The new role is not played voluntarily 
in Rome. It is played by Jesuits in the United States, not in 
Rome. Rome has two faces, one for the United States and 
another for Italy. Where Protestantism creates public opinion, 
the role is played, because intolerance is there unpopular. 
Where Rome creates public opinion, no eloquent eulogies upon 
the beauties of toleration are heard, because there the thing 

itself is unknown. 

6* 



84 ROME A PERSECUTING CHURCH, 

When Luther arose and preached against the miserable cor- 
ruptions of the Church of Rome, in his day, which were so no- 
torious that they were confessed and lamented even by Roman- 
ists themselves, his life was in constant danger, and if the good 
Elector Frederick of Saxony had not protected him with all his 
power and wisdom, he would have met a violent death long 
before the Reformation was completed. Rome was a persecu- 
ting Church then. 

When the Edict of Worms was issued against Luther and 
all who adhered to him, declaring him severed from God's 
Church "and commanding under pain of punishment for high 
treason and the severest proscription of the empire 7 that no one 
shall afford him lodging, food, drink, or protection, or in word, 
or deed, secretly or openly adhere to him, aid, or assist him r 
but if any should get him into their power, to take him captive,, 
and deliver him well secured to his imperial majesty. All his 
coadjutors, adherents, harborers, supporters, patrons, and fol- 
lowers shall be taken captive, and their property seized and con- 
fiscated" — the Church of Rome was a persecuting Church then. 

When during the lifetime of Melanchthon, Francis I. of France 
made the famous declaration that "if he thought that the blood 
in his arm was tainted with the Lutheran heresy f he would order 
it to be cut off, and that he would not spare even his own chil- 
dren if they entertained sentiments contrary to those of the Holy 
Catholic Church," and when he carried out this spirit by burn- 
ing alive multitudes of Lutherans for their faith, Rome was a 
persecuting Church then. 

When the bloody Queen Mary burnt Ridley and Cranmer at 
the stake for their Protestant faith, and two hundred and seventy 
seven other persons, bishops, preachers, and laymen, women 7 
children, and aged persons, on account of their adherence to the 
pure doctrines of the Gospel, Rome was a persecuting Church 
then. 



ROME A PERSECUTING CHURCH. 8s 

When in the Netherlands, the Emperor Charles V. enforced 
'the Edict of Worms against all who held the doctrines of Luther, 
and executed it with such severity, thai thousands of ministers 
and people perished by the sword and at the stake in horrible 
•suffering as martyrs for the Evangelical faith, Rome was a per- 
secuting Church then. 

When Philip II. of Spain by means of the Inquisition inflicted 
an that benighted country, the most dreadful cruelties upon hun- 
dreds and thousands of persons in order to suppress the doc- 
Urines of the Reformation, Rome was a persecuting Church 
ihen. 

When in poor Ireland, ""where in the early centuries primitive 
Christianity existed, established by the good St. Patrick, and 
where it flourished until the 7 th Century when the papal yoke 
was forced upon the people by the sword, and there began a 
series of dreadful persecutions of those who would not worship 
images, and bow down to the infallibility of the Pope, or listen 
to the drivel of the Romish priest, and which continued down 
to, and through the reign of King James," Rome was a persecut- 
ing Church then. 

When., including the massacre of St. Bartholomew^ Eve in 
Paris in 1572, perhaps 100,000 Huguenots were murdered in 
the unhappy country o£ France, on account of their Protestant 
faith, Rome was a persecuting Church, then. 

When the bones of the Waldenses and Yaudois whitened the 
mountains and valleys of Piedmont, after having been followed, 
and hunted, and put to death like wild beasts by hundreds and 
thousands, by the minions of Rome, because they would read 
the Bible, and worship God in their simple Christian faith, Rome 
was a persecuting Church then. 

When in 1864 Pope Pius IX. in his Encyclical Letter of De- 
cember 8th, pronounced his anathemas on all who maintain the 
liberty of the press, the liberty of conscience, and the liberty of 



86 ROME A PERSECUTING CIIURCH. 

speech, I am rather inclined to think that the Church of Rome 
is a persecuting Church still. 

When Pope Pius IX. issued his famous Syllabus in 1864, for 
the action of the Vatican Council, in which he condemned all 
who deny that the Church of Rome may employ force in the ex- 
ecution of her dogmas, I am afraid Rome has not changed, but 
is a persecuting Church still. 

And even in this year of grace, 1879, when the new law en- 
acted in Belgium, that removes the state schools from under the 
authority of the Roman Church will be put in operation, and 
the Roman Bishops have resolved to obstruct the new law in 
every possible way, having instructed the priests to refuse abso- 
lution to all who patronize or countenance the state schools, the 
children, and parents, and teachers who disobey are to be put 
under the ban, and the teachers are required to resign under pain 
of excommunication, I am afraid that notwithstanding the disa- 
vowal of Jesuits and Bishops, Rome is, as ever, a persecuting 
Church still. 

I have my fears that the Church of Rome is still a persecuting 
Church, both from the facts to which I have now referred, and 
from the well known elaim which that church makes that, whilst 
Protestants change, she never changes. What Rome, therefore, 
once approved, she always approves. She claims to be so cer- 
tainly right, that she is never in the wrong. If, then, to perse- 
cute, and kill, and burn, Luther, and Cranmer, and the Wal- 
denses, and the Huguenots, and the Spanish Jews, was once 
right, it would seem, that it must be always right. At least I 
have, in all my reading, never seen a line emanating from Holy 
Mother Church, in which she confessed her error, or retracted 
a wrong, or admitted that she transgressed the line of her au- 
thority, when she imprisoned, and tortured, and confiscated the 
property, or burned the bodies of heretics. As long as no such 
confession, or retraction, or admission of wrong is announced, 



ROME A PERSECUTING CHURCH. 87 

we are, I think, permitted to take for granted that no such con- 
fession, or retraction, or admission of unwarranted assumption 
of power and authority, has ever been made. A church that 
never changes in any thing, will not change in this. 

My fears that the Church of Rome is still as ever, a persecut- 
ing Church, are not allayed by what has emanated from the of- 
ficial head of that Church within the last ten or fifteen years. 
On the 8th day of December 1864, only fifteen years ago, Pope 
Pius IX. issued a most important official document, entitled 
"Syllabus Errorum" or the Papal Syllabus of Errors. It is a 
formal enumeration of errors of our times, which are anathema- 
tized and condemned by the Church of Rome. Among other 
things enumerated as errors, and which are condemned by the 
Pope, together with those who hold them, are the following : 

No. 23. "That the Roman Pontiffs and Oecumenical Councils 
have exceeded the limits of their power, have usurped the rights 
of princes, and have even committed errors in defining matters 
of faith and morals." 

This is declared to be an error, and those who hold it are 
condemned. 

No. 24. "That the Church has not the power of availing her- 
self of force, or any direct or indirect temporal power." 

This too is denounced as an error, and those are anathema- 
tized who hold it. 

No. 78. "That it has been wisely provided by law, in some 
countries called Catholic that persons coming to reside therein, 
shall enjoy the public exercise of their own worship." 

This too is stigmatized as an error, and those who maintain 
it, are condemned. 

Now what is the meaning of these 'three articles, of the Popes' 
Syllabus? First: No Roman Pontiffs, however cruel and de- 
spotic, have ever exceeded the limits of their power, when im- 
prisoning, torturing, murdering, and burning heretics. Second: 



88 ROME A PERSECUTING CHURCH, 

The Roman Church has the power, and ought to exercise it, of 
employing force in executing her dogmas. Third : That no per- 
sons residing in a Roman Catholic country shall be tolerated in 
the exercise of their own Protestant, or other, worship. 

These principles are very clearly laid down, and asserted in 
the Pope's Syllabus sent forth to the world, from Rome, only 
fifteen years ago. As the Vatican Council that met in 1869 and 
1870 declared the Pope to be infallible, when he speaks ex 
cathedra, and as this Syllabus was issued officially, and ex ca- 
thedra, by Pope Pius IX. it is as plain as the sun at noon-day, 
that Popery has not changed, has confessed no error, has re- 
called no act of intolerance or persecution, but on the contrary, 
has confirmed all the despotic, and cruel, and bloody deeds of 
the past, and is to-day, the same persecuting, intolerant, and 
vindictive church it has always been. The principles, the will, 
and the spirit, are the same now as ever. It only lacks the 
power to carry them out. The Reformation, thanks to God, has 
broken its power. Protestantism has created a public senti- 
ment of tolerance, which even despotic Rome, and bloody Popes, 
are compelled to respect. No thanks to Rome that the world 
does not now, as in centuries past, witness the burning of heretics. 

Let us now, in the light of the Pope's Syllabus reaffirming all 
the past in the history of Rome, and of papal infallibility voted 
by the Vatican Council, and bearing in mind the unchangeable 
character of Romanism so recently and so solemnly declared, 
proceed to examine in detail some great and well known facts 
of History. I have merely glanced at a number of the acts of 
persecution of the Roman Church, but we will be able to under- 
stand its persecuting spirit better, when we go into details, and 
thoroughly examine the particulars of some prominent event of 
this kind. There are many that might be selected. I will se- 
lect the Massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day, on the 24th day of 
August 1572. It occurred only 55 years after Luther nailed his 



R OME A PERSECL TING CHURCH. 89 

95 Theses to the door of the Castle Church at Wittenberg, and 
26 years after Luther's death. It, indeed, is so near to the Re- 
formation as to be almost a part of its eventful history. 

After we have become familiar with the details of the horrible 
Massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day, we will then very briefly 
sketch the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, by Louis XIV. of 
France, and the cruel persecution of the Protestants that fol- 
lowed. The latter event is intimately connected with the pre- 
ceeding, and indeed must be considered in connection with it, 
in order to have before the mind the full knowledge of the one 
historical fact, the persecution of the Protestants of France. 

It will be necessary for us to glance at the state of the 
Protestant Church as it existed in France previous to the 
Massacre. 

In consequence of the- doctrines of Luther having been propa- 
gated by his numerous writings which were circulated every- 
where, and were read with avidity, many minds in France were 
led to see the errors and corruptions which he exposed, and to 
embrace the truths which he taught. When, subsequently, Cal- 
vin added his preaching and writings to those of Luther, large 
numbers of Frenchmen renounced their connection with Rome, 
and embraced the Reformation. Individual Protestants in large 
numbers appeared in France who held Protestant doctrines, con- 
gregations were organized in many places, and the Reformed 
Churches gained numbers and strength. But the demon of 
Popish persecution soon arose, and priests and kings combined 
in the bloody effort to suppress by force, what could not be put 
down by argument. Under the three successive kings of France, 
Francis I. Henry II. and Francis II. many thousands of Protes- 
tants were put to death by the sword and by fire. 

Notwithstanding these fierce persecutions by the Romish 
power the number of Protestants continued to increase and so 
many ministers and congregations existed in 1559, that the first 



go ROME A PERSECUTING CHURCH. 

Protestant Synod in France, was formed, and met in Paris, and 
adopted what is known in Church History as the Confessio Gal- 
licana. Even a powerful branch of the royal family, the Bour- 
bons, Anthony of Navarre, and his spirited wife Jeanne d' Al- 
bert, Anthony's brother Louis Bourbon, and Prince Louis of 
Gonde, and besides these of the royal family, many other 
persons of eminence in the State, such as Admiral Coligny, sev- 
eral members of the Parliament, and others, embraced Pro- 
testantism. 

The progress of the Reformation among the people, and par- 
ticularly, the favor with which it was received by persons of 
high position in the State, awakened the bitter hostility of the 
advocates of the Roman Church, the chief among whom were 
the Guises, of the ducal house of Lorraine. The Government 
was in the hands of the enemies of the Protestants, and they 
used it with fanatical zeal for the suppression of the Huguenots, 
as the Protestants were called. They arrested the Huguenots, 
cast them into prison, confiscated their estates, executed large 
numbers, and employed every cruel art for the purpose of "de- 
stroying them altogether. There was a chamber in every Par- 
liament established to examine and punish the Protestants, called 
by the people, the burning chamber, because all who were con- 
victed of heresy, were burnt. 

The sufferings of the Protestants became so insupportable at 
length, that they were compelled to take up arms to defend 
themselves. From this time, for a number of years, the history 
of the Huguenots is a record of blood. Excesses were committed 
on both sides, as was always the case when human passions 
swayed in men's breasts, and craved revenge on the one hand, 
and thirsted with fanatical fury, for blood on the other. After 
a number of years of hostilities and bloody persecutions, a truce 
was declared, and a treaty of peace was concluded at St. Ger- 
main in 1562. This treaty secured to the Protestants the free 



ROME A PERSECUTING CHURCH. gi 

exercise of their religion, and many persons who had secretly held 
Protestant ideas, but who had been deterred by fear from the open 
avowal of them, now came forward, and espoused the cause of 
Protestantism. This so enraged their adversaries, who had all 
along been much dissatisfied with the ordinance of toleration, 
that they assembled in large mobs, disturbed the Protestant ser- 
vices, burned their humble houses of worship with all the people 
in them, or murdered those who attempted to escape. At Vassy 
in Provence, where the Protestants were gathered for worship 
in a barn, a most fearful carnage was perpetrated, by which a 
large number of Protestants were cruelly massacred, by order of 
the Duke of Guise. 

Religious and civil war now broke out afresh, and raged for 
some years with great violence. Peace was twice concluded, 
but was of short duration, when the flame of war burst forth 
anew. During all these warlike commotions, the Protestant 
cause gained strength, until the third peace of St. Germain was 
concluded in 1570, which secured to the Huguenots, liberty of 
conscience, and the exercise of their religion, only Paris and the 
residence of the Court, were excepted. As a pledge of peace, 
four important fortresses were given to them, and as a final act 
by which permanent peace was to be secured, Charles IX. the 
King of France and head of the Romish party, proposed a mar- 
riage between Prince Henry, Son of the Queen of Navarre, one 
of the chief members of the Protestant Church of France, and 
Charles' own sister Margaret. Navarre, it will be borne in 
mind, was a province of France, at the foot of the Pyrenees 
mountains, with the title of a Principality. Although belonging 
to France, it had a sort of sovereignty of its own, and Henry's 
mother was called Queen of Navarre. When Henry was yet a 
mere child, his mother embraced the Protestant doctrines and 
cause, and carefully reared her son in the same faith. She and 
her son Henry, together with the Admiral Coligny, and the 



92 R OME A PERSE CUTING CHUR CH, 

young Prince of Conde, were the acknowledged heads of the 
Protestant party in France. 

A mareschal was despatched to invite the Queen of Navarre, 
and her son Henry, to the court of Charles, and to urge the pro- 
jected nuptials as the surest pledge of reconciliation and peace 
between the two religious parties. It is an established fact of 
history, that the motive that underlay this proposal of marriage, 
was hostility to the Protestant religion. The plot was to assem- 
ble the chief Protestants in Paris, and destroy them at one 
blow. 

The Queen of Navarre was not anxious for the marriage of 
her son with the Princess Margaret. She seems to have enter- 
tained very just apprehensions concerning the result of the nego- 
tiations for the marriage. 

But after much negotiation, her objections and fears were 
overruled, and the marriage was agreed upon. The Queen left 
Navarre to visit Paris, in order to be present at the solemnities. 
She arrived several weeks before the time appointed, intending 
to pass the time that intervened until the nuptial ceremony, as 
the guest of the King and his Queen mother. But in less than 
three weeks, she was suddenly attacked with severe illness, and 
in four days she was a corpse. "The suddenness of her death, 
gave rise to suspicions of its not being natural, and the horrible 
event which succeeded it, confirmed them. As she was the 
principal support of the Protestant party, it was deemed improb- 
able that their enemies would suffer her to live, when they were 
endeavoring to destroy all the Protestants with one blow. Yet 
to have comprehended the Queen in the general massacre, would 
have rendered them odious to the whole world. A less evident 
method of procuring her death, was therefore requisite, and even 
some of the best and most candid Roman historians acknowl- 
edge the imputation of her being poisoned, as an undoubted fact. 
History names Catharine de Medici, the mother of Charles, as 



ROME A PERSECUTING CHURCH. gj 

the authoress of the crime, her perfumer Rene, as the agent, and 
a pair of poisoned gloves as the instrument." * 

As the arrangements for the marriage of her son had already 
made considerable progress, the death of the Queen did not long 
postpone it. After the death of his mother, Henry assumed the 
title of King of Navarre, and the preparations for the marriage 
proceeded rapidly. Henry's strongest and ablest statesmen and 
commanders were the Admiral Goligny, and the Prince of Gonde, 
both ardent Protestants. Both were specially and earnestly in- 
vited to come to Paris, to be present at the marriage of Henry, 
their King. Charles the King of France, "wrote in terms of great 
affection and earnestness to the Admiral, representing that the 
marriage was fixed for the middle of August, and that however 
brilliant would be the company assembled at its solemnization, 
Coligny's attendance was indispensable to render the festivities 
complete." Notwithstanding these professions of affection, many 
of all classes, of the Protestants, apprehended treachery. The 
Admiral was very earnestly warned against the danger, and en- 
treated to remain away. 

Even after he arrived in Paris, he continued to receive warn- 
ings from his friends, that the professions of friendship for him 
and his cause, were not sincere, but that treachery was to be 
apprehended. But he dismissed all fear, and declared himself 
fully confident that the royal word was sincerely uttered, and 
might be relied on. 

Similar attempts to inspire the young King of Navarre with 
suspicion of danger were equally unsuccessful, and at the com- 
mencement of August he arrived in Paris, where he was either 
awaited, or joined, by the noblest members of his court, and 
professors of his religion. All things were at length ready for 
the nuptials. 



') Smedle^'s Hist. Ref. Rel. in France. 



94 ROME A PERSECUTING CHURCH. 

On the 18th of August, the Royal Cortege escorted the hride 
with great pomp to the Choir of St. Denis, where the bridegroom, 
attended by a magnificent retinue, led her to the high altar, and 
withdrew during the performance of Mass, in which, as a Pro- 
testant, he would not join. When Mass was over, he rejoined 
his bride, and the marriage service was then read, according to 
a form mutually agreed upon, on a lofty scaffolding raised before 
the portal of the Cathedral, in the full view of the populace, and 
the historian tells us that the bride exhibited during the cere- 
mony, a petulant disgust sufficiently portending the hopelessness 
of all future nuptial happiness. 

The festivities in honor of the marriage were continued during 
the week following that in which it was solemnized. • But even 
during these outward demonstrations of joy, the malignant pas- 
sions of the hypocritical movers in the scheme, were secretly 
preparing the way for a most bloody gratification. On pretence 
of protecting the Protestants who were present at the marriage, 
from the revengeful spirit of the Guises, who had come to the 
nuptials accompanied with a powerful retinue of armed men, 
under the pretext of swelling the pomp of these nuptials, King 
Charles proposed to Admiral Coligny, that with his consent, he 
would quarter a regiment of King Charles' soldiers in the city as 
a guard. He even named certain officers as commanders, whom 
he knew to be acceptable to Coligny. This artful representation 
of Charles produced the desired effect. The Admiral was de- 
ceived by these professions of friendship.. The soldiers were in- 
troduced into the city, and distributed in various districts where 
they could subsequently be used to the best advantage in the 
perfidious and bloody scheme of assassination, for which they 
were intended to be the instruments. 

"On the morning of Friday after the marriage, Coligny, having 
transacted some business with the Duke of Anjou in the Louvre, 
afterwards accompanied the King to the Tennis Court of the 



ROME A PERSECUTING CHURCH. gj 

palace. From this, after remaining awhile to witness the play, 
he, in company with a dozen friends, withdrew in order to go to 
his own house to dinner. As lie passed on foot along the street, 
he was occupied in reading a paper which had been put into his 
hands, with the design, it is supposed, of slackening his pace. 
At a certain spot, opposite to a house occupied by a bitter enemy 
of the Protestants, the report of fire arms was heard, and the 
Admiral was struck by two bullets, one burying itself very deeply 
in his left arm, the other shattering the fore finger of his right 
hand. Without any change of countenance, he pointed to the 
house from which the shots had been discharged, requested 
some of his attendants to inform the King of the occurrence, and 
with the assistance of his servants, walked on to his hotel, which 
was but a few paces distant. To some one who expressed a 
hope that the bullets might not have been poisoned, he tranquilly 
replied, "God's will be done."* 

The King of Navarre, and the Prince of Conde were at once 
made acquainted by a messenger, who was dispatched to them, 
of the attempted assassination of the Admiral, and they hastened, 
with all speed to where he was, in his hotel, in great suffering. 
They found him under the surgeon's hands, who, on a careful 
examination of the injuries he had received, found that the bullet 
in the left arm could be extracted, but that the finger of his right 
hand was so badly shattered, that amputation was necessary. 
This was immediately done, but he was put to great agony dur- 
ing the operation, in consequence of the bluntness of the surgical 
instruments used. Merlin, his chaplain, read to him during the 
painful operation, some appropriate consolatory passages of script- 
ure, and Goligny responded with great fervor : "My God, abandon 
me not in this so great trouble, nor let Thy mercy forsake me." 

When the operation was over, and Goligny was resting some- 



*) Smedley's History. 



9 6 ROME A PERSECUTING CHURCH. 

what more comfortably, although still in much pain ; the King of 
Navarre and the Prince of Gonde left him, to return to the palace. 
Here they at once demanded an audience of King Charles, and 
besought permission for themselves and their followers to retire 
from the Capital, as it was obviously harzardous for them to re- 
main there any longer. The King became greatly enraged at 
this request, protested with many oaths, in his usual profane 
manner, that he was as much hurt as they were, at the murder- 
ous attempt upon the life of Coligny, promised to punish with 
the utmost severity, the guilty assassins, and begged them to re- 
main in Paris to witness the execution of his premise. They 
unfortunately permitted themselves to be persuaded to remain, 
being deceived by the King's apparent earnestness and sincerity. 
On pretence of searching for the assassins, and preventing their 
escape, the King ordered the city gates to be closed, and vigilantly 
guarded, thus preventing the Protestants from leaving Paris, 
and enclosing them in the net that had been artfully spread for 
their destruction. 

On the morning of the 23d of August, the surgeon pronounced 
the Admiral to be free from all immediate danger, and expressed 
confident hopes of his recovery. Numerous friends, overjoyed 
by this unexpected report, volunteered to pass the night in his 
house, but their services were declined as needless. Five Swiss 
halberdiers, in the King of Navarre's service, patrolled the Ad- 
miral's court yard ; his chaplain, surgeon, three intimate friends, 
and five or six inferior attendants slept or watched in his cham- 
ber, and the attachment of royal archers, sent by King Charles 
as a guard, blockaded all the approaches to his residence. Such 
was the situation, when the great bell on the tower of the royal 
palace, at midnight, proclaimed the signal for the Massacre of 
St. Bartholomew's Day, August 24, 1572. 

At the signal, for which it seems, all was prepared, and in 
readiness, and the populace were waiting, the Duke of Guise 



ROME A PERSECUTING CHURCH. 



97 



hastened with a numerous detachment of soldiers, to the Hotel 
of the Admiral. The royal archers who blockaded all the ap- 
proaches, made no resistance, but joined their forces to his. 
The few Swiss guards were easily overpowered, and had hardly 
time to sound the alarm to the inmates of the house, when the 
soldiers of the Duke of Guise, rushed in. An officer at their 
head entered, with his drawn sword, into the chamber of the 
old Admiral, who, sitting calmly in his easy chair, supporting 
his wounded arm on pillows, said to their leader: "Young man, 
my grey hairs ought to command thy respect ;_ but do as thou 
pleasest ; thou canst shorten my life only a few days." Upon 
this, the wretch deliberately put the point of his sword to the 
breast of this noble man, and pierced him with several stabs, 
until the blood covered his person, his chair, and the floor. 
The soldiers, following the example of their leader, continued 
to thrust their swords into his body, even when death had 
already done its work. They then lifted up the body, and threw 
it out of the window into the court yard below, where it was 
kicked and trampled on for three days, by the bigoted populace, 
who had collected there in immense numbers as soon as the 
midnight bell gave them the signal. His head was cut off the 
body, and carried by an Italian to Catharine, the King's mother, 
who ordered it to be sent to Rome as a welcome present to the 
Pope. The body was then dragged through the streets by the 
infuriated rabble, and finally, torn and mangled, it was hanged 
to a gibbet on Montfaucon. The King went to see it there, and 
as it was already much decayed, some of his attendants turned 
from the revolting spectacle. The King laughed at them, and 
said, quoting the dissolute Roman Emperor Vitellius, "the smell 
of a dead enemy is always agreeable. 1 ' 

The Massacre soon became general in every part of Paris. 
The populace were maddened with religious fury, and like 

bloodhounds, that became still more furious bv the taste of blood, 

7 



9 8 ROME A PERSECUTING CHURCH, 

they ravaged every part of the city in pursuit of the hated Pro- 
testants. Wherever one was found, he was dragged forth, and 
butchered with the most savage ferocity. 

In the midst of the horrible butchery, Charles caused the 
King of Navarre, and the Prince of Conde to be brought to him, 
and after telling them that the severities then exercised against 
their party, were necessary for the peace of his Kingdom, and 
his own security, he added that they were exempted from the 
general fate by the great regard he bore for them as princes of 
his blood, and the hope he had that they would deserve his 
mercy by their fidelity to him, and by the abjuration of their 
heresy. The King of Navarre thought proper to temporize, and 
gave him reason to hope that he would comply with what he 
required. But the Prince of Conde answered, that he was ac- 
countable to God alone for his religion, that his possessions and 
his life were in his power, and he might dispose of them as he 
pleased, but that no menaces, nor even certain death, should 
make him renounce the truth. So bold an answer enraged the 
King to the most violent degree, and he swore that if the Prince 
did not abjure in three days, he should die. Guards were set 
over him and the King of Navarre ; their attendants were for the 
most part murdered, and persons were put over them who were 
entirely the tools of the priesthood, and of the King.* 

The King of Navarre was long detained in Paris, under strict 
surveillance, but finally escaped. The Prince of Conde eluded 
his keepers, and took refuge in Germany. 

Some of the Protestants who were in the suburbs taking the 
alarm at the noise they heard, escaped, but as they passed the 
river Seine, it is said, the King himself shot at them, and cried 
to others to follow them, and kill them without mercy. 

The King still continued to dissemble, however, and wished to 



*) Life of Theod. Aggrippa D'Aubigne. 



ROME A PERSECUTING CHURCH. 9 g 

deceive the courts of other nations, as to his part in the horrible 
tragedy. His design was originally to attribute the Massacre to 
the revenge of the Huguenots against the Duke of Guise for the 
assassination of the Admiral, but as they took no such revenge, 
the expedient failed. He however "wrote with the same hand 
with which he had shot at the poor flying Protestants, to several 
princes and foreign States, disclaiming his having any share in 
the horrors of that business, and charging it on the family of the 
Guise, as the effect of their private revenge." 

The dreadful Massacre was continued so long as a single 
Protestant of whatever age or sex was to be found in Paris. 
The river Seine, that runs through Paris, says an eye witness of 
the horrid scene, "was almost covered with dead bodies, and 
the streets ran with blood. The rage of bigotry is so early im- 
bibed that children of ten years old dragged babes in swaddling 
clothes through streams of blood to be slaughtered and the in- 
human bigots, killed infants who, too young to be susceptible of 
fear, played with the beards of their butchers, as thinking them 
in sport, till they felt the fatal stroke. The cruelties then com- 
mitted are too numerous to be enumerated, and many of them 
too horrible to relate. The screams and groans of the dying, 
and the loud imprecations of the murderers, so far overcame 
every other sound, that in the streets people could not sometimes 
distinguish the voices of those who spoke."* 

Such is the testimony of history. 

The destruction of the Protestants was not confined to the 
city of Paris, but extended throughout the country. Two days 
before the Massacre began in Paris, orders had been sent into 
every province of France, that a simultaneous rising against the 
Protestants should take place on that day, and in most of the 
great towns, these orders were too faithfully obeyed. Writers 



) Life of Theo. Ag. D' Aubigne. 

7* 



ioo ROME A PERSECUTING CHURCH. 

differ in their computation of the numbers killed on the occasion. 
One historian says 30,000, others 70,000, and another 100,000, 
including those who fell throughout the Kingdom of France. 
The infuriated Romanists were so diligent in their search that 
the number that escaped was incredibly small. 

"The King was soon brought to acknowledge that he had 
ordered the Massacre, and even to glory in it. He went to the 
courts of Parliament the third day, declared it was by his com- 
mand, and pretended it had been done in consequence of a con- 
spiracy formed by the Admiral and his adherents, against his 
person. In order to give a show to the statement, processes 
were commenced against them, although they were then already 
slain, and condemnation given, which however imposed on no 
one, as there was not the least color for the accusation. Some 
of the French writers, indeed, pretend that the Massacre was 
not long premeditated but was the effect of a sudden resolution 
formed in consequence of threats uttered by some of the Hugue- 
nots on account of the assassination of the Admiral. But every 
circumstance of the affair so strongly contradicts the supposi- 
tion, that one cannot but feel some surprize that they should 
expect to gain belief."* 

I must now pass over the history both of the civil and religious 
events in France, until Henry, now King of Navarre, became 
King of France, as Henry IV. By the celebrated Edict of Nan- 
tes, which he proclaimed in 1598, he secured to the Protestants 
their civil rights, confirmed to them the free excercise of their 
religion, and gave them equal claims with the Romanists, to all 
offices and dignities. This continued until the reign of Louis 
XIII. the weak and bigoted son of the liberal and magnanimous 
Henry IV. One of the chief objects of his despotic first minister, 
Cardinal Richelieu, was to subjugate the Protestants, deprive 



•) Life of D' Aubigne. 



ROME A PERSECUTING CHURCH. jor 

them of'their rights and privileges, wrest from them their fort- 
resses, and compel them to abjure their faith. When all Riche- 
lieu's strategems to seduce them into the Romish communion 
were unsuccessful, he adopted the most inhuman laws which 
rage and bigotry could dictate, and the most oppressive measures 
that malice could invent, to damp their courage and bring them 
under the yoke of Rome. The French bishops distinguished 
themselves in this horrid business of persecution and cruelty, 
so that numbers of Protestants sunk under the weight of despotic 
oppression, and yielded up their faith to armed legions that were 
sent to convert them, and many thousands fled from France 
into adjacent countries, but the greatest part persevered with a 
noble and heroic constancy in their attachment to a pure faith, 
and in their renunciation of the doctrines and worship of a cor- 
rupt and idolatrous church. 

When, at length, every method which artifice or perfidy could 
invent, had been practiced in vain against the Protestants, under 
the reign of Louis XIV. the bishops and Jesuits, whose councils 
had peculiar influence in the cabinet of that prince, judged it 
necessary to extirpate by fire and sword, this resolute people, 
and thus to ruin elfectually the Preformation in France. Their 
representations had such an effect upon the credulous mind of 
Louis, that in 1685, trampling on the most solemn obligations, 
and regardless of all laws, human and divine, he revoked the 
Edict of Nantes, and thereby deprived the Protestants of the liberty 
of serving God according to the dictate of their consciences, and 
the simple forms of their warship, took from them their civil 
rights, and exposed them to the fiercest persecution of their ene- 
mies. The consequences were not only destructive of Protes- 
tantism, but of tiie true interests, and real prosperity of the 
French nation. Whilst thousands perished by fire and sword, 
and the sad scenes of imprisonment, torture, confiscation of 
property, and the murder and burning of innocent people, were 



102 ROME A PERSECUTIA G CHURCH. 

enacted all over the land, thousands upon thousands were com 
pelled to abandon their homes, and take refuge in other coun- 
tries. The persecution of the Protestants before and after the 
Revocation of the Edict of Nantes cost France more than half a 
million of her best and noblest citizens.* France made a great 
mistake. In crushing Protestantism out of her country, she de- 
stroyed the elements of her greatest prosperity. France feels the 
effects of her mistake to this day. 

From this hasty sketch of the events that succeeded the Massa- 
cre of St. Bartholomew's Day, we must now return, and con- 
clude our remarks upon that horrid tragedy. 

It will be remembered that the head of the great and good 
Admiral Goligny was sent to Rome by King Charles' mother, 
Catharine de Medici. It was thought to be an acceptable present 
to the Pope. And so it was, as will now appear. 

What I am about to relate is an essential part of my argu- 
ment. Without it, the whole might be attributed to the political 
schemes of the French King. But the fact which I will now 
mention, fastens the responsibility of it on the church of Rome, 
as her act and deed, and illustrates the bloody spirit that has 
always ruled within her pale. She endorsed it fully, and made 
the horrid tragedy her own. 

Pope Gregory XIII was at this time in the papal chair. When 
the head of Admiral Coligny was received at Rome, with the 
news of the bloody Massacre, the Pope proclaimed a jubilee, 
ordered cannon to be fired in honor of it, went in solemn pro- 
cession, with cardinals and monks, to the church of San Louis, 
and there caused a Te Deum to be chanted in praise and thanks- 
giving to God for the horrid deeds which his partizans had per- 
petrated at Paris. This fact will not be denied. It is the testi- 
mony of all the historians who relate the event of the Massacre. 



*). Mosheim's EccLes, Hist.— Encyclopedia Americana Art. Huguenot 



R OME A PERSECUTING CHUR Ch: 103 

Even the American Cyclopedia, — a work that is so much under 
Romish influence, that the confidence of many readers of it, has 
been shaken as to the reliability of its statements when any facts 
bearing on that church, is concerned, — even this work is com- 
pelled to say : "A solemn Te Deum over the event was sung at 
Rome, by the order of Pope Gregory XIII." The Cyclopedia 
then attempts to break the force of this fact, by alleging a con- 
spiracy, which is wholly unsupported by History, for the only 
conspiracy in the case, was the horrid conspiracy to murder the 
Protestants. 

Now, this Te Deum at Rome by order of the Pope, fastens the 
responsibility of the horrid deed on the church of Rome. The 
Pope sanctioned it, approved it, glorified it. The Pope gave it 
the official endorsement of the Church of Rome, of which he was 
the acknowledged head. What he did, his church did. The 
Pope made a day of jubilee of it, rejoiced over it amid the thund- 
ers of cannon, paraded the streets of Rome in full canonical 
vestments, held a long procession of priests with crosses and 
banners, made the church reverberate with the sounds of the 
organ and the choir in glad anthem, and praised and thanked 
God with the grandest Hymn of Praise that the Christian Church 
knows, the glorius Te Deum, for an event that closed the eyes, 
and shut the mouths, and stilled the hearts of perhaps 100,000 
Protestants, and that was deemed to promote in the highest de- 
gree, the interests of Popery, and the Church of Rome. 

Let it be borne in mind that Rome never changes, because 
she professes never to err. Rome has never condemned the act 
of Gregory XIII. No subsequent Pope or Council of the Church 
of Rome, has announced that his official act then performed, 
was an error or was wrong. What he did, his church did. He 
was its recognized and infallible head, and the act of the head, 
was the act of the body. His act bound his church. No indivi- 
dual person sustains to any other church in the world, the same 



104- ROME A PERSECUTING CHURCH. 

relation, which the Pope does to the Church of Piome. By its 
own decretals, and especially by the decrees of its most recent 
Council, the Pope includes in himself the church, and the official 
acts of the Pope, are the acts of the church. The responsibility 
of the horrid and bloody Massacre af St. Bartholomew's Day, is 
fastened upon the Church of Rome, so positively and firmly, 
that it cannot be shaken off. It was not the act of Charles King 
of France only, but of the Pope, who approved and glorified it, 
and of the church which he represented, of which he was the 
infallible head, and in whose interests this revolting crime was 
perpetrated. It seems to me impossible for any candid and 
fair-minded reader of History to come to any other conclusion. 
I am sorry that this is the right and true conclusion. It is a 
dark spot on the page of History, that every one must wish was 
not there. It is also a dark spot on the Church of Rome, and 
it must give no one any pleasure to see it there. The effort to 
hide it, or explain it away, or excuse it, is very natural. But 
falsehood will not explain it away. To apologize for it will not 
explain it away. I wish the bloody spot could be wiped away. 
But it cannot. There it is, and angels and men must be ashamed 
of it. 

But it may be asked : Why narrate these things on the present 
occasion ? Why not permit such horrid facts to pass into oblivion ? 
What benefit to us can be derived from the record of scenes so 
terrible as these ? We answer : — 

We read history to our profit, when we look behind the facts, 
to the causes that led to them, and when we trace events to the 
principles that produced them. We speak of the spirit of the 
age, and many persons who hear or read of St. Bartholomew's 
Day, ascribe it to the spirit of that age, and as the spirit of our 
age is different, they think we have nothing further to do with it. 
But the spirit of every age is the result of the principles that are 
dominant in that age The spirit of our age is tolerant, because 



ROME A PERSECUTING CHURCH. 105 

the principles that are predominant in the breasts of men, are so. 
The predominant political principles are those of American free- 
dom, and the governing religious principles are those of Protes- 
tantism. This is admitted by every one. No intelligent observer 
fails to see this. The principles of political liberty announced 
July 4 1776 in Philadelphia, are to-day, the aggressive political 
principles that are imperceptibly giving tone to government and 
law all the world over. And the religious principles confessed 
at Augsburg June 25 1530, have become predominant in the 
world, have softened the fierce spirit of Romanism itself, and 
they hold its persecuting power in check, to-day, by the tolerant 
spirit of the age, which is their natural and blessed fruit. We 
wish to call particular attention to this position. We would 
give all possible emphasis to the declaration that the spirit of the 
age, is the result of the dominant principles of the age. And the 
political spirit of this age is that of liberty, because the dominant 
political principles are those of freedom ; and the religious spirit 
of the age is that of tolerance, because the dominant religious 
principles are those of Protestantism. This position is so strong, 
that I think it is impossible successfully to assail it. 

The spirit of the age becomes then the test of the character 
and working of the political and religious principles of the age. 
The despotic political principles, and the bitter, intolerant religious 
principles of the age of the Massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day, 
account for the sanguinary spirit that led to, and justified, the 
horrible scenes that were then witnessed in Paris, and through- 
out France. Is not this a just and logical conclusion ? Where 
is there any error in the reasoning ? Every thinking, and fair- 
minded man must admit that I am right in my argument. It 
follows then that the spirit of that age proves that both despotic 
government in politics, and Popery in religion, are false in 
theory, and wrong in practice. Let the same principles both in 
politics and religion prevail now, that prevailed then, and we 



io6 ROME A PERSECUTING CHURCH. 

will see the same spirit of the age that prevailed then prevail 
now, and the same sad and horrible scenes will be enacted now, 
that were enacted then. Bring back the dominant principles, 
and you will also bring back the dominant spirit, and you will 
have again the persecution that flows from such spirit of the age. 

I have no animosity toward the individuals that entertain 
the principles of Popery. I respect and esteem many most ex- 
cellent persons, who rise above the system of Popery, although 
professedly connected with it. Although within the pale of the 
Church of Rome, they are among our best and most valuable 
citizens, because they breathe, not the Romish, but the Protest- 
ant spirit of the age. The spirit of the age, resulting from Pro- 
testant principles, being dominant, is stronger than the spirit 
naturally flowing from their own principles, since those princi- 
ples are not dominant. But whilst I have no personal animosity 
against any one, I have a very earnest controversy with their 
principles nevertheless. I trace all the cruel and bloody scenes 
described in this discourse, to the predominance of those princi- 
ples. The like causes will always produce like effects. Restore 
the predominance of those principles, and we will again have 
those dreadful scenes, and the page of future history will be as 
black as the pages of history past. 

We do no injustice to truth when we hold that the Massacre 
of St. Bartholomew's Day proves that Romanism is false and 
dangerous, and ought not to be adopted as the principles to be 
held by any person who consults his truest interests for time and 
eternity. My reasoning is just, and the conclusions I have stated, 
are right, and neither can be successfully controverted. And when 
in connection with this bloody tragedy, we take the Syllabus of 
Pope Pius IX in which he claims that the Roman Church has 
the power to use force, and the right to the temporal power to 
enforce her edicts, and at the same time anathematizes all who 
hold that Roman Pontiffs in past years have exceeded the limits 



ROME A PERSECUTING CHURCH. 107 

of their power in enforcing their edicts, we have a case that 
may well make Protestants tremble if Romanism should ever 
again obtain the ascendancy in the world. We have reason to 
dread the unchecked power of such a despotic hierarchy as, in 
all past history, the Church of Rome has proved itself to be. It 
makes the same pretensions still. It claims now as ever the 
right to use force. It anathematizes all who deny this right. 
The Church of Rome has given us not the smallest ground to 
believe that it has changed its spirit, acknowledged any error, or 
that, if it again had the power, it would not be the same perse- 
cuting, bloodthirsty tyrant it has always been. 

In the light of such events as those which we have described, 
we learn the true value of the glorious Reformation of the 16th 
Century. If God had not restrained the malice and the power 
of its enemies, it would have been crushed in the birth, and the 
world would probably have groped its sad way in religious dark- 
ness, and political oppression up to the present time. Ry this 
Massacre of the Protestants, and the Revocation of the Edict of 
Nantes, the power and progress of the Reformation in France, 
were broken, and France has been suffering the sad penalty for 
its error ever since. Even up to a few years past, we have seen 
in the corruption of religion, the intolerance of the hierarchy, 
and the degradation of the people, in such countries as France, 
Spain, and Italy, the bitter fruits of the criminal mistake they 
made in closing their states against the entrance of Protestant 
ideas, and banishing them by fire and sword, when they had 
succeeded in obtaining a limited admission. Whereas, in such 
countries as Germany, and Sweden, and England in Europe, and 
the United States in America, we note the beneficent effects of 
the full adoption of those ideas, in the purity of religion, the lib- 
erty of the Church, the free institutions of the state, and the in- 
telligence, security, and happiness of all classes of the people. 

Truth, and liberty, and right have always had to undergo a 



io8 ROME A PERSECUTING CHURCH. 

severe struggle in this fallen world. It is strange that it should 
be so. But the fact is so nevertheless. In every age the cause 
of truth, and liberty, and right, has had to contend with power- 
ful, opposing forces, that resisted its progress, and sought in all 
possible ways to crush it. Its martyrs are counted by thousands. 
Its noble votaries have perished on the cross, on the field of bat- 
tle, in street massacres, in the gloomy dungeon, by the tortures 
of the Inquisition, amid the snows of Siberia, and in the flames 
of the stake. Truth, and liberty, and right were crucified on 
Calvary when Christ died, and have been crucified afresh in every 
age since, in the fierce and bloody persecutions that have been 
inflicted upon His true followers. 

But though crushed to the earth, truth, and liberty, and right 
will rise again. They cannot be finally killed. They are mighty 
forces in God's universe, and though crushed for a season, they 
will in the end prevail. The memory of their bitter persecutors 
will rot, or their names will be mentioned with execration by 
future generations, whilst their votaries, that offered up their lives 
in their defence, will be honored as earth's noblest benefactors, 
and their names will be held in everlasting remembrance. 
Patriots have toiled, and in their country's cause 
Bled nobly, and their deeds, as they deserve, 
Receive proud recompense. We give in charge 
Their names to the sweet lyre. The historic muse, 
Proud of the treasure, marches with it down 
To latest times; and sculpture in her turn 
Gives bond in stone, and ever during brass 
To guard them, and to immortalize her trust : 
But fairer wreaths are due, tho' seldom paid 
To those who, posted at the shrine of truth, 
Have fallen in her defence. A patriot's blood, 
Well spent in such a strife, may earn indeed, 
And for a time insure, to his loved land 
The sweets of liberty and equal laws ; 
But martyrs struggle for a brighter prize, 



R OME A PERSECUTING CHUR CH. iog 

And win it with more pain. Their blood is shed 

In confirmation of the noblest claim — 

Our claim to feed upon immortal truth, 

To walk with God, to be divinely free, 

To soar, and to anticipate the skies. 

Then let them be remembered. Write their names 

High on the scroll of fame. Make known their deeds 

To future generations. Emulate 

Their zeal for God, their love of truth and right ; 

And cherish, e'en at greatest sacrifice, 

The faith for which they died. 



DISCOURSE V 



NECESSITY OF THE REFORMATION. 

2 Thess. 2 : 3. — Except there come a falling away first. 

THE Reformation of the 16th Century is one of the most 
prominent events in the history of the world. It was ren- 
dered necessary by the deplorable corruptions into which the 
Church had fallen. The effects of the Reformation are apparent 
now in both Church and State. It inaugurated a new era in 
civil, as well as in religious life. It changed the dominant prin- 
ciples that ruled in the breasts of priests, and princes, and peo- 
ple, and the necessary result was the prevalence of a new spirit 
of the age, both in religion, and in politics. 

In order properly to appreciate the value of the Reformation, 
we must know why it was rendered necessary. Reformation 
implies something that needed to be reformed, amended, chang- 
ed, made better. What was this? What was there in the 
Church that was wrong and needed to be righted — something 
evil that ought to be amended — something bad that had to be 
made good again ? 

The text speaks of a "falling away." It is a prophetic refer- 
ence to the times and events that preceded the Reformation. 
Before the end of the world, and the second coming of Christ, 
there would be the appearance of the "Man of Sin," who would 
sit in the place of God, "exalt himself above all that is called 
God," "sitting in the temple of God," "shewing himself that he 
is God, ir "calling" himself the Lord "God," and being the Vice- 
God. This would be the "falling away" of the text — falling 
away from the doctrine of God — falling away from the pure truth 
of God — falling away from the sanctity of the service of God. It 



NECESSITY OF THE RE FORMA TION. in 

would be just the existence of the corruption in the doctrine and 
life of the Christian Church, which called for the Reformation, 
and made it necessary. And as it was predicted, so it came 
to pass. 

We can only estimate correctly the Reformation, when we 
rightly understand the state of things in the Church which called 
for it. If it was not necessary, it ought not to have taken place. 
If there were no great evils to be rectified, the Reformation was 
not needed. And the evils that called for it, must have been of 
the most serious and aggravated nature, otherwise so great a rem- 
edy as the Reformation was not justifiable. What were those 
evils? In what consisted the "falling away" from the purity and 
simplicity of Christ, which constituted the necessity of the Re- 
formation ? The answer to these questions will constitute the 
theme for discussion this evening. I will indulge in no offensive 
personalities; I will misrepresent nothing; I will set nothing 
down in malice ; but I will deal in well known facts of history, 
which no intelligent man can dispute. My discourse will con- 
sist largely of word for word quotations from standard Church 
historians. 

First : The Gospel as a system of faith and salvation was 
essentially corrupted. As represented in the Church of Rome, 
during the centuries just before the Reformation, Christianity 
was another Christianity than that which was taught by Christ 
and His apostles. Nothing can be more pure and simple than 
the Gospel as it proceeded from its divine Founder. It was a 
system of pure faith, and a pure life. Its worship was pure, and 
its manners were simple. It revealed to men, a way of salva- 
tion through the grace and mercy of God in Christ, and it an- 
swered the question of the anxious soul that asked "What must 
I do to be saved?" by pointing it to the "Lamb of God that 
taketh away the sins of the world." From this purity and sim- 
plicity, the Church had sadly departed. It was corrupt in its 



ii2 NECESSITY OF THE REFORMA TION. 

head and body. Justification by being made righteous in Christ's 
righteousness alone, by faith, was not taught, but was anathe- 
matized. The true way of salvation by grace, was hidden by 
being covered up with rubbish. Conversion as a change of the 
heart and nature of man, so that he should become spiritually a 
new creature in Christ Jesus, was practically unknown. The 
worship of God "in spirit and in truth," was so much corrupted 
as to resemble the heathen rather than the Christian worship. 
The Gospel as seen in Christ, and as seen in the PopeS, the pro 
fessed Vicars of Christ, was essentially another Gospel. Few of 
its original features remained visible. It no longer answered 
the end for which it had been revealed. It was darkness and 
not light. It anathematized that which it should have blessed, 
and it glorified that which it ought to have denounced. It 
preached another way of salvation than that which Christ 
preached, and it led the inquirer to human methods, rather than 
to divine methods, of attaining eternal life. It was not Christ, 
but Anti-Christ. 

Let me quote, on this point, the language of the learned and 
truly great Ecclesiastical Historian, Dr. John Lawrence Mosheim, 
whose work has always been a standard in Church History. He 
says : "The public worship of the Deity was now no more than 
a pompous round of external ceremonies, the greatest part of 
which were insignificant and senseless, and much more adapted 
to dazzle the eyes than to touch the heart. Of those who were 
at all qualified to administer public instruction to the people, 
the number was not very considerable ; and their discourses, 
which contained little beside fictitious reports of miracles and 
prodigies, insipid fables, wretched quibbles, and illiterate jargon, 
deceived instead of instructing the multitude. Several of these 
sermons are yet extant, which it is impossible to read without 
the highest indignation and contempt. Those who, on account 
of their gravity of manners, or their supposed superiority in point 



NECESSITY OF THE RE FORMA TION. 113 

\ 

{ \ of wisdom and knowledge, held the most distinguished rank 

\ among these vain declaimers, had a commonplace set of subjects 
I allotted to them, on which they were constantly exercising the 
I force of their lungs, and the power of their eloquence. These 
I subjects were, the authority of the holy mother church, and the 
' obligation of obedience to her decisions ; the virtues and merits 
of the saints, and their credit in the court of heaven ; the dignity, 
: glory, and love of the blessed Virgin ; the efficacy of relics ; the 
duty of adorning churches, and endowing monasteries; the 
; necessity of good works (as that phrase was then understood) 
to salvation ; the intolerable burnings of purgatory ; and the utility 
i of indulgences. Such were the topics that employed the zeal 
and labors of the most eminent doctors of this century ; and they 
I were, indeed, the only subjects that could tend to fill the coffers 
of the church, and advance her temporal interests. Ministers 
who would have taken it into their heads to inculcate the doc- 
trines and precepts of the Gospel, to exhibit the example of its 
I divine Author, and the efficacy of His mediation, as the most 
powerful motives to righteousness and virtue, and to represent 
; the love of God and mankind as the great duties of the Christian 
life, would have been very unprofitable servants to the church 
and to the papacy, however they might have promoted the cause 
of virtue and the salvation of souls."* 

Next : The Papacy was a corrupt and unmitigated despotism. 
The chief corruption existed in the head, and extended from 
thence to the members. In order to enable my hearers to form 
an intelligent conception of the corruption that existed in the 
Church, and that called for reformation, we must not limit our 
view to a few years, but take a survey of the space of several 
centuries, before the date of the Reformation. The corruption 
of the Church was not then only begun, but dates back a long 



*) Mosheim's Eccles. History. 



ii4 NECESSITY OF THE REFORMA TION. 



time. . It had become a chronic disease. It was an evil of long 
standing. Let us take a rapid glance at the history of the Popes, 
at the darkest period of the dark ages. We might select almost 
any part of this period, and the same dark picture would meet 
the eye. But let us take the space of time extending from A. D. 
904 to A. D. 1085, a period of little more than 180 years. Per- 
sons who are not familiar with history, will be astounded at the 
sketch which I will now proceed to give. 

The history of this period, is the record of the fierce contest 
between the Popes and the Emperors for superior power. The 
Popes claimed that the Emperors were subject to them. The \ 
Emperors refused to acknowledge their jurisdiction in their tem- 
poral affairs. 

For half a century, from 904, the papal chair was filled with 
Popes, by "Theodora, the concubine of Adalbert, Margrave of 
Tuscany, a beautiful and noble Roman, but steeped in lowest 
vice, and her equally infamous daughters, Marozia, and Theo- 
dora." These Popes were "the paramours, the sons, and the 
grandsons" of these abandoned women. And these Popes "sur- 
passed each other in vileness and wickedness of every kind." I 
quote the very words of the historian,. Prof. Kurtz of the Univer- 
sity of Dorpat. First was Pope Sergius III. who was Pontiff from 
904 to 911. "He was the paramour of Marozia." John X. 
came next, "whom the elder Theodora summoned from his see 
at Ravenna, as the distance of that city from Rome put some 
restraint on her infamous connection with him." As John 
turned against these women after the elder Theodora's death, 
"Marozia had him cast into prison and smothered." He was | 
succeeded by John XL "the son of Pope Sergius and Marozia." 
Alberic, John XL's brother, rebelled against his brother John, 
and took his temporal power from him. Octavianus "son of i 
Alberic, and the most dissolute of that race," became Pope at the 
age of 18, and took the name of John XII. in 955. In the civil 



NE CESS IT Y OF THE RE FOR MA TION. i is 



wars of Italy, Pope John XII. opposed Berengar II. King of Italy, 
and invoked the aid of Otho I. Emperor of Germany. Otho 

i| conquered Berengar, and was crowned as Roman Emperor, by 
Pope John XII. in St. Peter's Church at Rome, in 962. Otho 
had hardly left Rome to return to Germany, when Pope John 
XII. changed sides, and entered into alliance with Berengar, to 
expel the Germans from Rome. Otho hastened back, and de- 
posed the Pope John XII. "as guilty of incest, perjury, blasphemy, 

; murder, and other crimes," in 963. "Crescentius, a son of 
Pope John XII. by the younger Theodora, now gained the 
ascendancy. 1 ' 

This is a specimen of the history of the Popes for the years 
intervening between A. D. 904, and A. D. 963, only 59 years. 

; It is not a very favorable exhibition of papal sanctity. And the 

: history of the Popes from that time to Leo X. at the dawn of 

: the Reformation, is no improvement. 

One of the most energetic Popes, was a Roman monk named 
Hildebrand, who became Pope in 1046, and took the name of 
Gregory VII. Henry IV. was Emperor of Germany. The Em- 

; perors claimed the right to superintend the affairs of the Church 
in their own dominions. Hence arose a fierce conflict between 
Pope Gregory, and the temporal authorities of the Empire. The 
Pope denounced all priests and bishops as guilty of simony, who 

j accepted their sees and pastorates from the Emperor, and not 
directly from the Pope himself. This was the struggle. The 

i history of this contest will give my hearers some idea of the 

j arrogant and haughty spirit that governed in the breasts of those 

) professed vicars of the meek and lowly Jesus of Nazareth. 

If Gregory had confined his efforts to the suppression of the 

sale of ecclesiastical benefices, and the licentiousness of the 

clergy, two great evils of his time, he would have accomplished 

a good work for the church. But whilst these were the ostensible 

objects toward which his vigorous efforts were directed, it is 

8* 



n6 NECESSITY OF THE REFORMATION. 

obvious that his ambition aimed at other attainments beside 
these : "Not content," says Mosheim, "to enlarge the jurisdic- 
tion, and to augment the opulence of the See of Rome, he labored 
indefatigably to render the universal Church subject to the des- 
potic government and the arbitrary power of the pontiff alone, 
to dissolve the jurisdiction which kings and emperors had hither- 
to exercised over the various orders of the clergy, and to exclude 
them from the management or distribution of the revenues of 
the church. The outrageous pontiff even went farther, and im- 
piously attempted to subject to his jurisdiction the emperors, 
kings, and princes of the earth, and to render their dominions 
tributary to the See of Rome. Such were the exploits that em- 
ployed the activity of Gregory VII. during his whole life, and 
which rendered his pontificate a continual scene of tumult and 
bloodshed." 

His contest with the Emperor, Henry IV. began in earnest in 
1075. The Pope issued his edict deposing every bishop and 
priest who accepted his charge from the State authorities. This 
edict was put in execution against Henry's personal advisers. 
The Emperor, being at the time engaged in a war with the Sax- 
ons, suppressed his anger, and dismissed his advisers. When 
the war was over, however, he restored them. The Pope cited 
the Emperor Henry, to appear personally before him, under pain 
of excommunication. Henry gave full vent to his wrath, in- 
sulted the Pope's legates, called a Synod at Worms, and had 
the Pope Gregory "deposed on charges of tyranny, magic, and 
adultery. Gregory replied by excommunicating all the Bishops 
who took part in the Synod, by solemnly deposing and excom- 
municating the Emperor, and by issuing an Edict freeing all the 
Emperor's subjects from their oath of allegiance to him. The 
papal ban made deep impression upon the princes and people of 
Germany, and the Bishops submitted, one after another, to the 
mandate of the Pope. A Diet was called by the Pope, and the 



NECESSITY OF THE REFORMA TION. 117 

election of a new Emperor was discussed. The weak monarch 
was as much frightened at the peril that threatened him> as he 
had been formerly imperious and bold, and he was at length 
willing to humble himself in the most abject manner before his 
adversary. In the cold winter of 1077, from the 25th to the 27th 
of January, the Emperor stood barefoot in the garb of a penitent, 
and fasting the whole day, in the court of the castle of Ganossa. 
At length the Pope consented to give him absolution, but only 
on condition of his not assuming his royal dignity, until his cause 
had been investigated and decided. But Henry broke his pro- 
mise, accepted the proffered aid of the Lombards, and made war 
against the Pope. Gregory hurled his anathemas at him, and 
the struggle waxed hotter and hotter, the Emperor deposing the 
Pope, and the Pope deposing the Emperor. The armies of Henry, 
were at length, successful. Rudolf of Swabia, his opponent in 
the Empire whom the Pope wished to reign in Henry's place, 
died soon after the battle of Merseburg, in 1080, and Henry 
escorted the anti-Pope, Clement III., to Italy. Rome was taken, 
but still Gregory refused overtures of peace, and shut himself up 
in the Castle St. Angelo, till the Norman Duke, Robert Guiscard, 
restored him to liberty in 1084. Gregory died the following year 
at Salerno. 1 '* 

This rapid sketch will afford an insight into the haughty spirit 
of the Popes, and their ambitious aspirations for power. And 
thus we might go on to describe the papal rule of Hadrian IV. 
1154; Innocent III. 1198; Boniface VIII. 1294; Alexander VI. 
1492; Julius II. 1503; Leo X. 1513; to the Reformation. They 
placed the papal power over all the civil power of Kings and 
Emperors. They aspired to be, not only lords over God's herit- 
age, but lords over the whole earth. I wish I could say that, in 
this respect, the spirit of Popery is changed. Whatever may be 



■) Kurtz's Church Historv. 



1 1 8 NE CESS IT Y OF THE RE FOR MA TION. 

the spirit and action of individuals in the Church of Rome, we 
must judge it by official documents, and unrepealed official ut- 
terances, not by individual opinions and utterances. I have al- 
ready, in a previous discourse quoted a few items from the En- 
cyclical and Syllabus of Pope Pius IX, issued ex cathedra in 
1864. I will now cite some additional ones. According to the 
decree of the Vatican Council of 1870, dogmas so issued by a 
Pope are infallible. They bind both the Pope and the Church 
of Rome. I wish all who hear me to mark well these papal 
utterances. People think we are slandering the papacy when 
we charge such things upon it. But here it is quoted word for 
word from the Pope's Encyclical and Syllabus issued only fifteen 
years ago, and endorsed as infallible by the Vatican- Council, 
only ten years ago. Hear them: He condemns 1. Those who 
maintain the liberty of the press. 2. Those who maintain the 
liberty of conscience and of worship. 3. Those who maintain 
the liberty of speech. I quote these three articles of the Encyc- 
lical, from Lord Gladstone's book entitled: "The Vatican Decrees 
in their bearing on Civil Allegiance," in which he gives the dates 
of the official paper from which he quotes. No one has suc- 
cessfully charged this eminent British Statesman with misrepre- 
sentation, or misquotation. The Pope condemns 4. Those who 
assign to the State the power of defining the civil rights and pro- 
vince of the Church. 5. Those who hold that Roman Pontiffs 
have ever transgressed the limits of their powers, and usurped 
the rights of princes. 6. Those who hold that the Church may 
not employ force. 7. Those who maintain that in the conflict 
of the laws, civil and ecclesiastical, the civil law should prevail. 
8. Those who hold that the abolition of the temporal power of 
the Popedom would be advantageous to the Church. 9. Those 
who hold that in countries called Catholic, the free exercise of 
other religions, may laudably be allowed. The last six are pro- 
positions 19, 23, 24, 42, 76, and 78 of the Syllabus of 1864. I 



NECESSITY OF THE RE FORMA TION. 



ug 



quote from the original Latin in my possession, and adopt Lord 
Gladstone's translation. 

We can well imagine that, if the will of the Pope as expressed 
in these articles of the Encyclical and Syllabus prevailed, and 
which really express the sentiment that governs the entire mind 
of the Roman Church, that we would' again witness such scenes 
as I have here briefly sketched. We would be in a sad case in 
these United States, if there was no liberty of the press, no 
liberty of conscience, or of worship, no liberty of speech, no 
power of the State to define the civil rights or province of the 
Church, no limit to ecclesiastical powers, no free exercise of any 
other religions than the Romish, and no restraint upon the Ro- 
man Church to employ force. It will scarcely be believed that 
such despotic and offensive claims are made and published to 
the world at this day. But there they stand on record, printed 
and published, signed and sealed by "our most Holy Father, 
Pope Pius IX" in the year of grace 1864. Rome never changes. 
Let the same principles be predominant now, as they were in 
the time of Gregory VII. and the same spirit would prevail, and 
the same scenes would be enacted, now as then. I know many 
persons are reluctant to believe this. But why did Pope Pius 
IX publish these claims, if he did not mean it? Every man that 
reads can judge for himself. Carry out these claims and you 
have an unmitigated despotism. Their assertion alarmed even 
Lord Gladstone of England. They may well alarm the free 
citizens of America, who are properly very jealous of their 
liberties. 

Further : The gross ignorance of the clergy and tlie people, 
indicated a falling away, and rendered the Reformation neces- 
sary. It is the general testimony of historians, that, during the 
several centuries before the era of the Reformation, the clergy 
were grossly ignorant. "The ignorance of the clergy,' 1 says Dr. 
Kurtz of Do'rpat, whose work is a text book in Church History, 



120 NECESSIT Y OF THE RE FORMA TIOJV. 

"especially in respect to religious knowledge, proved even a 
greater hindrance than their immorality, to the progress and 
prosperity of the Church. The word of God was locked up from 
the people in a dead language, and only a very small proportion 
of the clergy were sufficiently educated, or fitted to declare and 
expound its blessed truths."* Mosheim, a standard authority, 
is still more severe. He says : "The monastic societies, as we 
learn from a multitude of authentic records, and from the testi- 
monies of the best writers, were at this time, so many heads of 
lazy, illiterate, profligate, and licentious Epicureans, whose views 
in life were confined to opulence, idleness, and pleasure." Again, 
he says, "The opulent monks exhibited to the world, scandalous 
examples of luxury, ignorance, indolence, and licentiousness, 
accompanied with a barbarous aversion to every thing that 
carried the remotest aspect of science."! 

As the clergy, who are usually ranked among educated men, 
were so extremely ignorant, we can well understand that the 
people were uneducated. They would not likely be better edu- 
cated, than their public instructors. Few of the people were able 
to read, and although the Hohenstaufen, a German family of 
princes who governed the German Empire during a large part 
of the 12th and 13th centuries, endeavored to establish elemen- 
tary schools in Italy, making attendance on them even obligatory, 
still they did not succeed. The ignorant clergy gave no encour- 
agement to the cause of popular education, but rather exerted 
their influence against it. "Darkness covered the earth, and gross 
darkness the people." The world needed light. The people, 
oppressed, degraded, ignorant, and in the shadow of a dark night, 
needed the dawning of a better day, that would enlighten the 
minds, sanctify the hearts, and elevate the condition, of all classes 
of the community. The Reformation did this. 



*) Kurtz's Church History, f) Mosheim's Eccles. Hist. 



NE CESSITY OF THE RE FOR MA TION. 121 

Again : The licentiousness of the priests and monks proved 
a sad falling away, and called for the Reformation. This is de- 
scribed by all reliable historians, and in language that I cannot 
repeat from the pulpit. And yet my hearers would have no 
proper conception of the facts of history, if I did not make some 
statements concerning it. I shall shock, the delicate feelings of 
my hearers as little as possible, by giving one of the mildest 
statements of the historian, and that only in a few lines. Says 
Dr. John Henry Kurtz, speaking of the priests of that time, "The 
moral condition of the clergy was sufficiently sad. The Bishops 
commonly lived in open concubinage. The lower secular clergy 
followed their example, and in many cases paid for this indul- 
gence a yearly tax to the Bishop. To this arrangement the people, 
who distinguished between the office and its holder, made no 
objection ; in fact it secured their wives and daughters from the 
temptations of the confessional. Thousands of loose women 
from all countries had assembled at Constance and Basle, dur- 
ing the sittings of the Councils. 1 '* Here I stop. This is 
only a part of the historian's statement. That which follows is 
worse still, bad as this is. If ever a system called for a Refor- 
mation, this did. No wonder that such a vile priesthood as this, 
used every effort in their power to bespatter with their filth, the 
great and good Luther, who opposed their shameless practices. 
Bad people think all other people as bad as themselves. That 
such persons hated and abused Luther, is Luther's best recom- 
mendation. If such men had praised him, we might, perhaps, 
have suspected him. But such men's abuse is Luther's best 
praise. 

Again : The prohibition of the reading of the Bible, proves 
a falling away from Christ's teaching, and evinced the need of 
the Reformation. This was one cause of the gross ignorance of 



*) Kurtz's Church History. 



122 NECESSITY OF THE REFORMA TION. 

the priests and the people, and of the absurd superstitions in- 
culcated and believed. "In the year 1229 the Council of 
Toulouse prohibited laymen from possessing the Old and the 
New Testament, and even from reading the Psalter or the Bre- 
viary, in the vernacular. In lieu of the Bible thus withheld, 
and of the martyrologies, which, being written in Latin, were in- 
accessible to the masses, the Church introduced in the 13th cen- 
tury, legends in rhyme, composed in the vernacular or common 
language of the people. 1 '* These rhymes consisted largely of 
the lives of the saints. But the Word of God was a sealed book. 
It was not open, but shut. The people were fed on husks and 
chaff. The true bread of life was withheld. The ignorant priest 
came between the poor hungry soul and its God. He was blind 
himself, and he could not lead the blind. No wonder Luther 
was surprized when he found hid under dust and cobwebs, a 
copy of the Bible, on the shelf of the Library at Erfurt. He had 
never seen the Bible before, and perhaps did not even know of 
its existence. The Reformation was in that Bible. When this 
sun was permitted to shine, it could not be dark any more. 
Popery is darkness. The Reformation is light. Rome shuts 
the Bible. The Reformation opened it. It was very dark then. 
It can never be so dark again. 

Again : The changing of the pure apostolic worship of God 
into a mere mass of absurd ceremony, was a mark of the 
Church's falling away from primitive faith and purity, and a 
proof of the necessity of the Reformation. When the worship 
of God no longer consisted of the reading of the scriptures, the 
singing of Hymns, the offering of simple prayers, and the preach- 
ing of the Gospel, the attention of the people must be taken up 
with something else. Additions were constantly made to the 
mere ceremonials of worship, in order to exhibit it in a more 



*) Kurtz's Church History. 



NECESSITY OF THE REFORMA TION. 123 

striking manner to the external senses. These additions were 
made both by the edicts of the Pontiffs, and by the injunctions of 
the sacerdotal and monastic orders. Religion had become a 
raree-show. Worship consisted of a mimic exhibition of sacred 
things, a spectacular display to captivate the senses. "But these 
scenic representations", says Mosheim, "in which there was a 
motley mixture of mirth and gravity, these tragi-comical spec- 
tacles, though they amused and atfected in a certain manner, 
the gazing populace, were highly detrimental to true, spiritual 
devotion. Instead of being useful to the cause of religion, they 
degraded its dignity, and furnished abundant matter of laughter 
to its enemies." Such are the observations of a grave historian 
like Mosheim. He concludes his remarks upon the rites and 
ceremonies of the loth century, by saying : "Religion was re- 
duced to a mere show, to a show composed of pompous absurdi- 
ties, and splendid trifles." Such a caricature of true, evangeli- 
cal religion greatly needed a Reformation. 

Again : Saint worship almost wholly set aside the worship of 
Christ, and required to be abolished. The eminent Church 
historian of the University of Dorpat, has these strong words : 
"In the fervent homage paid to the saints, the people forgot the 
worship due to Christ and the Father. Every business and 
calling, every age and station, had its patron saint, and under 
every mischance or disease, there was some special saint to 
whom to apply for relief. The religion of the people was little 
other than a kind of magic. Salvation was obtained by indulg- 
ences and good works. A large amount of superstition had been 
imported from heathenism. Belief in witchcraft, amulets, 
dreams, good and bad omens, fairies, brownies, merged with the 
dogmas of the Church about saints, angels, and demons, gave 
rise to a kind of Christian mythology." This is a serious charge. 
Superstition, indeed, is found in people every where. But the 
difference is, that, whereas Protestantism opposes and diminishes 



I2 4 NECESSITY OF THE REFORMA TION. 

superstition, Romanism encourages and promotes it. The charge 
is that superstition was so mixed up with the dogmas of the 
Church of Rome, as that belief in the dogmas involved belief in 
the superstition. This charge is made by one of our most reliable 
historians, and sad it is that the facts are as he states them. 
And it is sadder still that there is not much improvement now, 
even with the light of Protestantism all about the world. When 
grave men - and women dip their ringers and cross themselves 
with holy water, and when they use their rosaries, and count 
one large bead for a Pater noster, and ten small beads for Ave 
Marias — ten prayers to the Virgin Mary to one to God the Father 
— there is really not much change for the better even now. The 
historian in his delineation of the Church of Rome of the present 
day, might use the same language of Dr. Kurtz, and say : "In 
the fervent homage paid to the Virgin Mary, and the saints, the 
people forget the worship due to Christ and the Father." But 
it is very strange. The salvation of the souls of men called for 
a better religion than this. 

Again. The worship of images and sacred relics, was another 
mark of the Church's falling away from the primitive purity and 
simplicity of Christ's teachings, that demanded a Reformation. 
In the instructions, and in the practice of Christ and His Apos- 
tles, we find not a solitary word, nor a single act, tending in the 
smallest degree to image worship, or to the veneration of relics. 
Says Mosheim, in describing the state of religion in the centuries 
preceding the Reformation: "Both Greeks and Latins placed 
the essence and life of religion in the worship of images and de- 
parted saints ; in seeking with zeal, and preserving with devout 
care and veneration, the sacred relics of holy men and women, 
and in accumulating riches upon the priests and monks whose 
opulence increased with the progress of superstition. Scarcely 
did any Christian dare to approach the throne of God, without 
rendering first the saints and images propitious by a solemn 



NECESSITY OF THE REFORMA TION. 125 

round of expiatory rites and lustrations. The ardor with which 
relics were sought almost surpasses credibility; it had seized all 
ranks and orders among the people, and had become a sort of 
fanaticism and frenzy; and if the monks are to be believed, the 
Supreme Being interposed in a special and extraordinary man- 
ner, to discover to doting women, and bare-headed friars, the 
places where the bones or carcasses of the saints lay dispersed 
or interred."* 

"It was not enough to reverence the departed saints, and to 
confide in their intercession and succor, but their bones, their 
clothes, the furniture they had possessed during their lives, the 
very ground which they had touched, or in which their putrified 
corpses were laid, were treated with a stupid veneration, and 
supposed to retain the power of healing all disorders both of body 
and tnind, and of defending such as possessed them, against all 
the assaults and devices of Satan. The consequence of this 
notion was, that every one was eager to provide himself with 
these salutary remedies. For this purpose great numbers under- 
took fatiguing and perilous voyages, and subjected themselves to 
all sorts of hardships, while others took advantage of this delu- 
sion, to accumulate riches, and to impose upon the miserable 
multitude by the most impious and shocking inventions. As 
the demand for relics was prodigious and universal, the clergy 
employed all their dexterity to satisfy these demands, and were 
far from being scrupulous in the methods they used for that end. 
Many travelled into the Eastern provinces, and frequented the 
places which Christ and His disciples had honored with their 
presence, that with the bones, and other secret remains, of the 
first heralds of the Gospel, they might comfort dejected minds, 
calm trembling consciences, save sinking estates, and defend 
their inhabitants from all sorts of calamities. Nor did these 



*) Mosheim's Eccles. Hist. 



126 NECESSITY OF THE RE FOR MA TJON. 

pious pilgrims return home with empty hands, for the craft, 
dexterity, and knavery of the Greeks found a rich prey in the 
stupid credulity of the Latin relic hunters, and made profitable 
commerce of this new devotion. The latter were made to pay 
large sums for legs, and arms, sculls and jawbones, and other 
things that were supposed to have belonged to the primitive 
worthies of the Christian Church, and thus, the Latin Churches 
came to the possession of those celebrated relics of St. Mark, St. 
James, St. Bartholomew, Cyprian, Pantaleon, and others which 
they show at this day with so much ostentation." * 

It is humiliating to read the accounts that are given of the 
various relics that are religiously kept, and venerated, and shown 
to visitors, in the various Roman Churches in Italy, Spain, and 
other countries. Pilgrimages are made to them by devout Ro- 
manists, from great distances, and the merits and blessings of 
such visits are supposed to have a very beneficial influence in 
securing their salvation. In this way the attention of poor de- 
luded souls, who seek after salvation, is diverted from the merits 
of Christ, and from simple trust in His grace, to a mere me- 
chanical act of no spiritual character or virtue whatever. And 
all the light and truth of these Bible times, have not been able 
to do away with this superstitious veneration, and meritorious 
worship of relics, but in many countries it is practiced with as 
much blind delusion now as before the Reformation. 

Again : The almost universal fear of the fires of Purgatory, 
and the zeal with which indulgences were sought and obtained 
to escape it, still further mark the falling away from the truth 
of the Gospel, of those times. "It is the modern doctrine of the 
Roman Catholic Church, founded on the Canons of Trent", says 
Waddington in his Church History, "that there is a Purgatory, 
and that the souls imprisoned there, are aided by the prayers of 



*) Mosheim's Eccles. Hist. 



A E CESS IT Y OF THE RE FORM A J ION. 127 

the faithful, and the acceptable sacrifice of the altar. Such is 
the outward profession of the church. The consequence which 
presently followed from the establishment of a place of temporary 
punishment, or purification for departed souls, was, that the suc- 
cessor of St. Peter assumed, through the power of the keys, un- 
limited authority there. By indulgences, issued at the discretion 
of the Pope, the sinner was released from suffering, and imme- 
diately passed into a state of grace."* 

The Roman priest who writes for Appleton's American Cyclo- 
pedia, employs great ingenuity in the attempt to cover over the 
most offensive features of Popish indulgences, apologizes for in- 
discretions in their advocacy of them by those wiio dispense 
them, admits that it is "easy for the unlettered multitude to con- 
found the remission of the canonical penalty thus obtained for 
money, with the purchase of pardon for sin," denies that indulg- 
ences are "a pardon for the guilt of sin", and yet approvingly 
quotes Pope Benedict XIV. when he explains indulgences by 
saying : "Whenever a Pope declares an altar to be privileged, he 
sets apart, each time the eucharistic sacrifice is offered on it for a 
departed soul, a sufficient portion of the Church's treasure of 
merits, to obtain from God, if it so pleaseth Him, the release of 
that soul from Purgatory." f This definition, with all its denials, 
and admissions, and apologies, justifies all that such writers as 
Buck and others, have asserted concerning them. Buck uses 
this language : "According to the doctrine of the Romish Church, 
all the good works of the saints, over and above th'ose which 
were necessary towards their own justification, are deposited, 
together with the infinite merits of Jesus Christ, in one inex- 
haustible treasury. The keys of this were committed to St. Peter 
and to his successors, the Popes, who may open it at their 



*) Waddington's Church History. 

f) Appleton's Am. Cyclop. Art. Indulgence. 



is8 NECESSITY OF THE REFORM A TION. 

pleasure, and by transferring a portion of this superabundant 
merit to any particular person for a sum of money, may con- 
vey to him, either the pardon of his own sins, or a release for 
any one in whom he is interested, from the pains of Purgatory. 
Such indulgences were first invented in the Eleventh Century 
by Pope Urban II. Pope Leo X. in order to carry on the mag- 
nificent structure of St. Peter's at Rome, published Indulgences, 
and a plenary remission to all such as should contribute money 
towards it. Finding the project take, he granted to Albert, 
Elector of Mentz, and Archbishop of Magdeburg, the benefit of 
the indulgences of Saxony, and the neighboring parts, and 
farmed out those of the other countries to the highest bidders ; 
who to make the best of their bargain, procured the ablest preach- 
ers to cry up the value of the ware."* 

Waddington, in his Church History, gives the form of the In- 
dulgences as thus dispensed by Pope Leo X. through Albert, 
Archbishop of Magdeburg, and sold^by John Tetzel in Germany. 
It varies only in one slight sentence, from the form as given by 
Robertson in his History of Charles V. It is as follows : "May 
our Lord Jesus Christ have mercy upon thee, and absolve thee, 
by the merits of His most holy passion. And I, by His authority, 
that of His blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul, and of the most 
holy See, granted and committed to me in these parts, do ab- 
solve thee first from all ecclesiastical censures in whatever man- 
ner they have been incurred ; and then from all thy sins, trans- 
gressions, and excesses how enormous soever they maybe, even 
from such as are reserved for the cognizance of the Apostolical See, 
and as far as the Keys of the holy Church extend. I remit to you 
all punishment which you deserve in Purgatory on their account, 
and I restore you to the Holy Sacraments of the Church, to the 
unity of the faithful, and to that innocence and purity which you 



*) Buck's Theol. Diet. Art. Indulgence. 



NECESSITY OF THE REFORMA TION. Z2 g 

possessed at Baptism ; so that, if you should die now, the gates 
of punishment shall be shut, and the gates of the Paradise of 
delight, shall be opened. And if you should not die at present, 
this Grace shall remain in full force when you are on the point 
of death. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
the Holy Ghost." 

Well does Waddington remark : "This Indulgence, in spite of 
the ambiguity of one or two expressions, is nothing less, when 
fairly interpreted, than an unconditional permission to sin for 
the rest of life, and as such, it was assuredly received by those 
classes of the people, for whom it was chiefly intended." * 

When reading this form of Indulgence, we learn, too, the value 
to be attached to Appleton's American Cyclopedia's assertion : 
"In no supposable case, can Indulgence be pardon for the guilt 
of sin, even to the most heartstricken penitent, still less a pro- 
spective pardon for future sins, or a license for committing them." 
It suits the purpose of a Roman priest now to say this, but such 
was not the opinion held of them, by Leo X. who issued them, 
by Tetzel who sold them, or by the poor, deluded people who 
paid their money for them. In view of this abominable traffic, 
surely all must admit, that the Church needed a thorough Re- 
formation. 

I will only yet remark at this time, that the bloody measures 
by meam oj tlie Inquisition, adopted by the Church of Rome to 
suppress what Rome was pleased to call heresy, prove the de- 
plorable falling away from the peaceful and saving character of 
primitive Christianity. Christ's religion proclaimed "Peace on 
earth, good will to man." He suppressed in the bud, and with 
the severest reproof, the manifestation of a persecuting spirit in 
His disciples, when, on a certain occasion, they desired to com- 
mand fire to descend from heaven to consume a certain Samari- 



*) Waddiugtou's Church History. 

9 



ISO 



NECESSITY OF THE REFORM A TION. 



tan village, for an insult to their Master. He denounced their 
proposal by indignantly declaring that they knew not what man- 
ner of spirit they were of. But Rome was as much, and more, 
a stranger to Christ's spirit, than they were. Rome did not 
hesitate to employ fire and sword to destroy purer and better 
people, who served God with a purer and better faith, than Rome. 
"The immediate cause of the erection of the Inquisition, 
called the tribunal of faith, was the sect of the Albigenses, who 
occupied the south of France, and refused to submit to the 
Roman hierarchy, and aimed to restore the simplicity of primi- 
tive Christianity. The persecution of these people, in the 12th 
and 13th Centuries, made the south of France a scene of blood. 
The project of extirpating heresy, and of suppressing any mem- 
bers of the Church of Rome, who might rebel against her des- 
potic authority, by means of the Inquisition, was conceived by 
Pope Innocent III. who ascended the papal chair in 1198, and 
was completed by his immediate successors. This tribunal, the 
Holy Inquisition, or the holy office (sanctum officium) was un- 
der the immediate direction of the papal chair ; it was to seek 
out heretics, and adherents of false doctrines, and to pronounce 
its dreadful sentence against their fortune, their honor, and their 
lives, without appeal. The process of this tribunal, differed 
entirely from that of the civil courts. The informer was not 
only concealed, but rewarded, by the Inquisition. The accused 
was obliged to be his own accuser, and suspected persons were 
secretly seized, and thrown into prison. No better instruments 
could be found for Inquisitors, than the mendicant orders of 
monks whom the Pope employed to destroy the heretics, and to 
watch over those Bishops who rebelled against the intolerable 
despotism of the Popes. Pope Gregory IX. in 1233 completed 
the design of his predecessors, and .as they had succeeded in 
giving these inquisitorial monks, who were wholly dependent 
on the Popes, an unlimited power, the Inquisition was success- 



NECESSITY OF THE RE FORMA TION. i 3 i 

fully introduced into several parts of Italy, and into some prov- 
inces of France. This tribunal was admitted into Spain in the 
middle of the 13th Century, where it did its bloody work for 
many centuries. Thomas de Torquemada, Prior of the Domini- 
can convent at Segovia, and father confessor to the Cardinal 
Mendoza, was appointed the first Grand Inquisitor in 1478. 
He had 200 familiars, and a guard of 50 horsemen, but he lived 
in continual fear of poison. The Dominican monastery at Seville 
soon became insufficient to contain the numerous prisoners, and 
at the first auto da fe, or act of faith, seven apostate christians 
were burnt at the stake, and the number of penitents was much 
greater. Above 17,000 persons were arrested, and more than 
2000 of them, were condemned to the flames, and were burnt 
at the stake, the first year, and immense numbers out of fear, 
fled to the neighboring countries for safety. According to 
Llorente, who had been Secretary of the Inquisition for many 
years, the number of victims of the Spanish Inquisition from 
1481 to 1808, amounted to 341,021. Of these 31,912 were 
burnt, 17,659 were burnt in effigy because they could not lay 
hands on them, and 291,456 were subjected to severe and pain- 
ful sufferings as penance."* 

Such a cruel and inhuman Church was the Church of Rome, 
just before the Reformation, and it preserved the same persecu- 
ting and bloody character many centuries after the Reformation. 
The Inquisition, which continued down to 1808, and was only 
closed in France under the iron will of Napoleon Bonaparte, the 
Massacre of St. Bartholomew's Day in 1572, and the Revocation 
of the Edict of Nantes in 1685, are some of the most prominent 
and bloody proofs of the persecuting spirit of the Church of 
Rome. Its bitter persecuting spirit has never been changed, or 
confessed to be wrong, or condemned as contrary to the Gospel, 



*) Encyclopedia Americana, Art. Inquisition. 

9* 



i 3 2 NECESSITY OP THE REFORMATION. 

or opposed to the genius of the Church Catholic. It is only held 
in abeyance, because the principles of Protestantism have be- 
come predominant in the civilization of the world, and these 
predominant principles have produced such a tone, and public 
spirit every where, in all civilized, Christian countries, that the 
persecuting spirit of Rome, can no more find a sphere in which 
it can operate. It is not able to carry out its persecuting spirit 
even in countries called Catholic, because Protestant nations are 
represented in them by their legations, who protect their citizens 
when unjustly treated. The fierce temper of this unmitigated 
despotism is still there, and it occasionally crops out, but it is 
restrained and held in check by Protestant civilization and it 
cannot persecute, and imprison, and shed blood, and burn at the 
stake, as formerly. Some think the nature of this cruel hier- 
archy is changed, and that it is now mild and gentle. But pub- 
lic safety demands that the restraints of a pure Christian civiliza- 
tion be still kept on it, and that the check of predominant Pro- 
testant principles, and Protestant spirit of the age, be kept strong 
enough to render it powerless for mischief. Surrounded by 
these restraints, and held in check by these influences, it is com- 
paratively harmless, but the safety of the world requires that it 
should not again have the power it once had. We would de- 
prive it of no liberty. Let it be "a free Church in a free State 17 
as any other. Let Romanists be as free to worship in their way, 
as any other. Let no one molest them, or interfere with their 
liberty of conscience, or of speech, or of the press, in any respect. 
The only restraints we would put on Romanism are the restraints 
of a prevalent, pure, Christian civilization which it dare not out- 
rage. The only barriers which we would erect are Protestant 
principles, and a Protestant spirit of the age, pervading Church 
and State, which Romanism is not strong enough to break down. 
Keep these chains on it, and keep it behind these strong bars, 
and we are not afraid of it, even when it does claim as in the 



NECESSITY OF THE RE FOR MA TION. 133 

Syllabus of Pope Pius IX. and in the decrees of the Vatican 
Council, to have the right to use force, and to employ the tem- 
poral power to enforce its edicts, and even if it does utter its 
anathemas against all those who hold that the Roman Pontiff 
ought to become reconciled to modern civilization as in No. 80 
of the Syllabus. This is the old growl of the unchanged despot, 
but thank God, the spirit of this Protestant age, produced by the 
predominant Protestant principles of the age, will not let it rend, 
and tear, and devour, as it once did, and as it still would do, if 
there was no Protestant spirit of the age to restrain it. Thanks, 
under God, to the blessed Reformation for that. 
Now, I have a few brief remarks in conclusion. 

1. Bad as the state of the Church and religion was just before 
the Reformation, and as we have faithfully and correctly de- 
scribed it, there were still some faithful ones left. God had not 
utterly forsaken His Church. There was still a remnant of true 
believers, and of devout men, even if the number was small. 
The state of the Jewish Church was once so low, that Elijah was 
greatly discouraged, and lamented: "Lord, they have killed thy 
prophets, and digged down thy altars, and I am left alone, and 
they seek my life. 1 ' But God answered him: "I have reserved 
unto myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee 
to Baal. 11 Even so at the worst period of Popish oppression and 
Romish corruption, there were such holy men as Anselm, Ber- 
nard, Thomas a Kempis, Staupitz, and hundreds, and even 
.thousands of others, who maintained a pure faith, and sound 
piety amid prevailing errors and corruptions. God permitted 
His Church to fall very low, but He did not utterly forsake her. 
In due time, He wrought deliverance, and brought salvation. 

2. A number of attempts, too, were made by godly men, who 
saw and bewailed the evil of the times to stem the flood of cor- 
ruption, and correct the ills which tlie Church was suffering. 
These attempts were many. The record of their exertions, their 



134 NE CESS IT Y OF THE RE FOR MA TION. 

sufferings, their martyrdom, and their failure, is a most interest- 
ing chapter in Church History. The evil was too great, and the 
enemy was too strong for them. We propose to devote an en- 
tire discourse to its consideration. 

3. The facts detailed in this discourse have made very plain 
the great necessity for the Church's Reformation. Such glaring 
evils dared not be permitted to continue. They must be recti- 
fied. How fiercely soever Jesuit missionaries may abuse Luther r 
and denounce the Reformation, the common voice of mankind 
proclaims, that the Reformation was absolutely necessary, that 
indeed the life of Christianity depended on it, and that Luther 
was the man of God called forth to do it. He was the right man 
in the right place. It would have been sad indeed if there would 
have been no man to do that work. It was a great and glorious 
work. The world is reaping the benefit of it now. Romanists 
who abuse him, and the Roman Church that denounces his* 
work, are made better by it, in spite of themselves. It was not 
of man, but of God. God raised him up to do His work. To 
God, then, be all the glory of the work. 



DISCOURSE VI. 



REFORM BEFORE THE REFORMATION. 

Heb„ II : 39, 40. — And all these, having obtained a good report through 
faith, received not the promise : God having provided some better 
thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect. 

THE Apostle Paul describes the case of many persons who 
lived before the dawn of the Christian era. They had some 
glimmering light, and they lived up to it. They felt after some- 
thing better than the light they possessed, and strove to attain it. 
They were dissatisfied with the state of things that prevailed 
around them, and they exerted themselves to bring about a better 
state of things. They made extraordinary sacrifices, and endured 
most painful sufferings, in behalf of the faith they held. And 
yet they were not permitted to witness the realization of all their 
fond hopes. They were not permitted to see the breaking forth 
of the full day. They died whilst it was yet twilight. The re- 
demption of the world did not come during their life time. The 
privilege of living to see that day, was reserved for another gen- 
eration. 

I propose, to night, to relate the efforts that were made by 
many persons who lived before the Reformation, to correct the 
abuses that had crept into the Church of Rome. They saw and 
lamented the evils that prevailed. They raised their voices 
against them. They made efforts to arrest them. They suffered 
and died in the work of reformation. But they were not suc- 
cessful. The powers of evil were too strong for them. They died 
without witnessing the purification of the doctrines and practice 
of the Church, for which they labored, and even laid down their 
Jives. That privilege was reserved iov others that would come 



i 3 6 REFORM BEFORE THE REFORMATION. 

after them. The era of the Reformation was yet future. It came 
in due time, but not whilst these earnest men lived. 

The history of the efforts at the reformation of the Church 
that were made before the time of Luther, is very interesting, 
and also instructive. As the subject is not often discussed in the 
pulpit, the whole may be new to some of my hearers. 

The first unscriptural practice of the Romish Church, that met 
with strong opposition was the use and worship of images. This 
was vigorously opposed even by Charlemagne, who contributed 
so greatly in other respects, to the temporal power of the Popes. 
His son who succeeded him, imitated his father's example, and 
several Bishops of the Empire, exerted themselves with great 
zeal to suppress them. Agobard, Archbishop of Lyons, wrote- 
several books against the use of images in Churches, and Clau- 
dius, Bishop of Turin, even exceeded Agobard in his opposition 
to them. Claudius rose above his age, in the true knowledge of 
evangelical doctrine, and taught that "man is justified without 
any works of his own, only through the mercy of God in Christ." 
But to such an excess had image worship been carried, and so 
strongly were priests and people determined to retain them, that 
they rose in popular tumults against Claudius,, and his life was 
only preserved by their fear of the army. The combined efforts 
of the emperors and of these noble Bishops, were unable to cor- 
rect this evil. These events occurred as far back as the 9th 
Century. 

When we pass onward to the 12th Century we come to Ber- 
nard of Clairvaux, a monk of singular piety and purity of char- 
acter and life. He was an earnest advocate of the claims of the 
Popes, and of the doctrines of the Roman Church. He did not 
venture to deviate from any of its dogmas, nor would he break 
with the Pontiffs. But .whilst he upheld the papal authority,, 
and adhered to all the doctrines of his Church, he boldly exposed 
the vices of the Popes, and the corruptions of religion as practiced 



REFORM BEFORE THE REFORMATION, 137 

by priests and people. He did not hesitate to reprove Pope Eu- 
genius III. on account of his worldly ambition, by which he em- 
barrassed and degraded the Roman See, and he exhorted him 
to attend to his spiritual duties, and leave to Kings and their 
ministers, the jarring contests about earthly superiority. In 
plain and burning words he reproved the venial excesses of pon- 
tifical usurpation. He, at the same time, exposed the neglect of 
spiritual duties by the Bishops, and monks, and priests, their 
rapacity, their insatiable greediness for power and wealth, their 
pride and splendor, their gluttony and drunkenness, their re- 
velry and voluptuousness, their laxity and immoral examples. 
It is remarkable that Bernard's rebukes were taken in good part 
by both Popes and monks, but they produced no permanently 
beneficial effects. For many of the Popes that came after Eu- 
genius III. in the persons of Innocent IV. John XXII. Alexander 
VI. Julius II. and others, were still more degenerate than Euge- 
nius, whom he rebuked so plainly. The festering sore was too 
deep and malignant for such rebukes as Bernard administered 
to cure it, outspoken as he was. It needed such drastic reme- 
dies as Luther administered to do it. 

In the early part of the 11th Century appeared a religious sect 
called Catharoi, that excited some attention. They were charged 
with unsound, heretical opinions, and no doubt they departed 
in some things from true, evangelical doctrine. But the chief 
motive that swayed their minds, and led to their organization, 
was oppposition to the hierarchical system of the Popes of Rome. 
They appeared in various places in Italy, and in France, and 
rapidly spread. The explanation of their existence and rapid 
increase, is to be found in the failure of the Church to satisfy 
the wants of the souls of men. They groped in the dark, with 
no true light to guide them, and were thus misled into errors 
often worse than those against which they contended. No doubt, 
they were in many respects calumniated by their enemies, who 



ij8 REFORM BEFORE THE REFORMATION. 

attributed to them opinions which they did not hold, particularly 
as we only know them from the representations of their enemies. 
Large numbers of them were brought to the stake and burnt. 
They gave themselves up willingly, and with great heroism, to 
suffer as martyrs for their opposition to the ecclesiastical system 
of Rome, and the errors of the Roman Church. The difficulty 
with nearly all these reformers was, that they had no proper in- 
struction. They knew very little of the word of God which was 
a sealed and unknown book. Their own plain Christian judg- 
ment told them that the Church of Rome was utterly corrupt, 
but what to substitute in its place, they knew not. When there- 
fore, they fell away from Rome, they were utterly in uncertainty, 
and substituted mystical and fanatical notions, that were little 
or no improvement on the evils which they sought to rectify. 

About the year 1110, another sect of reformers arose in Lan- 
guedoc and Provence, of which a priest named Peter de Bruys 
was the founder, From him they were called Petrobrusians. 
"He made a laudable attempt to reform the abuses, and remove 
the superstitions that disfigured the beautiful simplicity of the 
Gospel, but after having engaged in his cause a great number of 
followers during a laborious ministry of twenty years, he was 
burned at St. Giles', in the year 1130 by a turbulent populace, 
instigated by the Romish clergy, whose traffic was in danger from 
the enterprizing spirit of this reformer."* His religion was grossly 
fanatical, but the evils that excited his opposition were real, and 
needed reformation. Like others before and after him, those 
evils were too strong to be overthrown by the weapons he was 
enabled to bring against them. 

Peter de Bruys had scarcely perished, when another sect of 
reformers arose, called Henricians, alter a monk named Henry 
of Lausanne. "It was, no doubt, a rare thing to see a person 

*) Mosheim's Eccles. Historv. 



REFORM BEFORE THE REFORMATION. i 39 

who was at the same time, monk and hermit, undertaking to 
reform the superstitions of the times, yet such was the case of 
Henry who left Switzerland, traversed France, reaching Toulouse 
in 1147, exercising his ministerial function with the utmost 
applause from the people, and declaiming with vehemence and 
fervor, against the vices of the clergy, and the superstitions they 
had introduced into the Christian Church."* He was banished 
from one place to another, and finally arrested, and brought be- 
fore Pope Eugenius III. who committed him to a close prison, 
in which he soon afterwards died. We do not know much 
about the peculiar doctrines,, held and taught by the Henricians, 
but they were, no doubt, very defective in many respects, as 
nearly all those of the reformers of that time, were. But we do 
know that they censured with great severity, the licentious man- 
ners of the priests and monks, and opposed the corruptions that 
prevailed in the religion and morals of all classes of the people. 
But they were not more successful in making any permanent 
impression than those that preceded them. 

About this time, in the early part of the 12th century, ap- 
peared an earnest man, named Rupert, Abbot of Deutz, whose 
mode of reform was different from that of all others, and of a 
much higher order. He insisted on the necessity of the study 
of the Word of God. "To him the Bible appeared the great text 
book for all ages and people, and the field where the precious 
pearl of salvation lay concealed, which every person, whose 
vision faith had enlightened, might there discover. He wrote 
commentaries, on most of the biblical books, and he rejected the 
doctrine of Transubstantiation, as held by the Church of Pvome." 
He passed away however without having produced any marked 
impression upon the evil which he sought to remove. Harder 
sledgehammer blows than any that he could administer, were 
needed to demolish the giant evils of the times. 



*) Mosheim's Eccl. Hist. 



140 REFORM BEFORE THE REFORMATION. 

"As the clergy of this age took little care of the sick and dying, 
and deserted those who were infected with those pestilential 
disorders that were then prevalent, some compassionate and 
pious persons of Antwerp formed themselves into a society for 
the performance of these religious offices which the sacerdotal 
orders so shamefully neglected. In the prosecution of this agree- 
ment, they visited and comforted the sick, assisted the dying 
with their prayers and exhortations, took care of the interment 
of those who were cut off by the plague, and on that account, 
were forsaken by the terrified clergy, and committed them to 
the grave with a solemn funeral dirge. It was with reference 
to this last office, that the common people gave them the name 
of Lollards or singers. The example of these good people had 
such an extensive influence, that in a little time, societies of the 
same kind, consisting both of men and women, were formed in 
most parts of Germany and Flanders, and were supported partly 
by their manual labors, and partly by the charitable donations 
of pious persons. The magistrates and inhabitants of the towns 
where these brethren and sisters resided, gave them peculiar 
marks of favor and protection, on account of their great useful- 
ness to the sick and needy. But the clergy, Whose reputation 
was not a little hurt by them, and the Mendicant friars, who 
found their profits diminished by the growing credit of these 
strangers, persecuted them, and accused them to the Popes of 
many vices and intolerable errors."* Many of them suffered 
severely. But useful as they were, they accomplished little 
toward the reformation of prevalent errors and vices in the 
Church. 

A singular set of fanatical people were developed by the evils 
of the times. It is wonderful how fanaticism will manifest itself, 
when there is a lack of the instruction and true spiritual food 



: ") Mosheira. 



REFORM BEFORE THE RE FOR MA TION. 141 

which the soul craves. A set of persons sprang up called Fla- 
gellantes, or'persons who inflicted blows upon their own persons. 
"Long trains of Flagellantes, with faces covered, wandered from 
country to country, amidst weeping, lamentation, and the chant 
of penitential hymns, continually applying as they marched, the 
scourge to their own backs. These revolting processions had 
suddenly appeared in Italy in the 13th Century, and they 
again paraded the cities of Europe, on different occasions dur- 
ing the 14th Century, especially in 1348, and 1350, during the 
ravages of the "Black Death." The Flagellantes made their 
appearance along the banks of the Rhine, whence growing like 
an avalanche, they passed through Germany, Belgium, Holland, 
Switzerland, Sweden, and England. The paroxysm lasted for 
three years. Many of them were condemned to the stake by the 
Inquisition." * 

They were a set of miserable fanatics, cast up by the dark and 
filthy waters of the times. They ignorantly thought in this way 
to correct the prevalent evils of a false religion, by making still 
more miserable fanatics of themselves. It proved how low re- 
ligion had sunk, and how ignorant good meaning people were. 
They felt that something ought to be done to be different from 
what they saw around them, and to correct the evils of the times, 
but as to what that something was, that ought to be done, they 
knew not. All sorts of absurd things were thrown to the surface. 

We come now to a more important movement, and sect of 
people, who rose in opposition to the despotic hierarchy, and 
corrupt practices of Rome. The Albigenses existed in the 12th 
and 13th Centuries in the south of France. Their purpose was 
to oppose the tyranny of the Pope, and to restore the simplicity 
of primitive Christianity. They were attacked by the army 
called the army of the cross, organized by Pope Innocent III. in 

*) Kurtz's Church History. 



i 4 2 REFORM BEFORE THE REFORMA TION. 

1209, at Toulouse, in the territory of Count Raymond, who tol- 
erated them. The war was carried on with a degree of cruelty 
that cast a deep shade over those who perpetrated it. Count 
Raymond was compelled to suffer the most disgraceful penance, 
and to be publicly whipped on his bare back by Milo, the papal 
legate. The town of Beziers, was taken by the legates Milo and 
Arnold, and 60,000 persons put to the sword. The persecution 
of these people did not cease until after hundreds and thousands 
had fallen, and the most beautiful parts of Provence and Upper 
Languedoc had been laid waste. Wherever one could be found 
in any hiding place, he was arrested, and brought before the 
horrid Inquisition, and the remainder that was left after the bloody 
war, were burnt at the stake. The name Albigensis disappeared 
after the middle of the loth Century. 

The Vaudois, or Waldenses are by some identified with the 
Albigenses, but by others, and more correctly, they are regarded 
as separate sects of people. They came prominently forward to 
notice in the 12th century, but they had been in existence long 
before in Piedmont, and "there are some who believe that they 
have enjoyed the uninterrupted integrity of their faith even from 
the Apostolic ages." * They are in existence to this day, and 
since Italy has thrown off the temporal sovereignty of the Pope, 
and under Victor Emanuel, and his successor, "a free Church" 
is tolerated in "a free State," they have come down from their 
mountain fastnesses, and have established churches and schools 
all over Italy. 

"In their contempt of the degenerate clergy, and their opposi- 
tion to the Roman priesthood, the Waldenses resembled other 
sects of the middle ages ; but, going beyond the design of their 
founder, which was merely to improve the morals of men, and 
preach the Word of God freely to every one in his native lan- 



*) Waddingtoo's Qhurck History. 



REFORM BEFORE THE REFORMA TION. 143 

guage, they made the Bible alone the rule of their faith, and re- 
jecting whatever was not founded on it, and conformable to 
apostolic antiquity, they gave the first impulse to a reform of the 
whole Christian Church, renounced entirely the doctrines, 
usages, and traditions of the Ptoman Church, and formed a sep- 
arate religious society. They were therefore excommunicated 
as heretics at the Council of Verona, in 1184, but they did not 
suffer a general persecution until the war against the Albigenses, 
' after they had spread and established themselves in the south of 
France, under the protection of the Counts of Toulouse and Foix. 
At that time many Waldenses fled to Arragon, Savoy, and Pied- 
mont. Spain would not tolerate them. In Languedoc they 
were able to maintain themselves till 1330, in Provence under 
severe oppression till 1545, when the parliament at Aix, caused 
them to be exterminated in the most cruel manner. In the 
middle of the 14th Century they went to Bohemia, where they 
were called Grubenheimer, because they used to conceal them- 
selves in caverns. They found a retreat fortified by nature, in 
the valleys of western Piedmont, where they founded a distinct 
Church, which has remained to the present day. Their doc- 
trines rest solely on the Gospel, which with some Catechisms, 
they have in their old dialect, consisting of a mixture of French 
and Italian.' 1 * 

It is the testimony of all historians that the Waldenses were 
distinguished from their Romish neighbors from the time of 
their origin, by their pure morals, and their industry, and their 
consistent piety. But like all persons before them, and since, 
who have opposed the errors and corruptions of the Roman 
Church, they have been bitterly persecuted. The attempt made 
at the time of the Lutheran Pvel'ormation to overthrow it, was 
also directed toward the extinction of the Waldenses. They 



*) Knclopedia Americana Art. Waldenses. 



144 REFORM BEFORE THE REFORMATION. 

were wholly extirpated in France, and they only preserved their 
existence in Piedmont by hiding in their mountain fastnesses, 
like the hare from the bloodhounds on its track. They were 
totally exterminated in the marquisate of Saluzzo. The court 
of Turin gave them assurances of religious freedom, "but they 
were treacherously attacked by monks and soldiers, treated with 
brutal cruelty, and many shamefully murdered." Many thou- 
sands were burnt at the stake by the Inquisition, for no other 
crime but the purity of their faith, and the holiness of their lives, 
whilst they refused to bow to the cruel hierarchy of Rome, and 
opposed the errors and corruptions of Popes, and Priests, and 
people. The history of the Waldenses is a continued record of 
persecution, and bloody massacres. 

The Waldenses were heroic martyrs for the truth. They bore 
noble testimony against the despotism and corruptions of Rome. 
They lived up to their own holy doctrines. They willingly en- 
dured the loss of all things, and laid down their lives for Christ. 
But they were unable to stem the flood of corruption that rolled 
all about them. They could die themselves, but they could not 
kill the wickedness in high places. They could reform their 
own lives, but they could not reform the corrupt Church of 
Rome. It needed harder blows than they were able to give. 

About this time a man appeared in England whose name is 
well known in Church History, in connection with a purer faith, 
and a holier life than were held and practiced by the Roman 
priests around him. His name was John Wickliffe. He was 
born in Yorkshire about the year 1324. He was a man of learn- 
ing, and a Professor of Theology at Oxford. "His earlier life 
was distinguished by a bold attack on the corruptions of the 
clergy, and he was known to hold many antipapal opinions, but 
he was not yet committed in direct opposition to Rome. Soon 
afterwards he formed part of an embassy to Avignon, instructed 
to represent and remove the grievance of the Anglican Church. 



REFORM BEFORE THE REFORMATION. 145 

It was not until his return from that mission, when his language 
was heated by long treasured indignation, or by the near view 
of pontifical impurity, that his language incurred the displeasure 
of the hierarchy of Rome. He was cited before a convocation 
held at St. Paul's in 1377, and it seems probable that he owed 
his preservation to the powerful protection of John, Duke of 
Lancaster. At the same time the Vatican thundered, Wickliffe 
was accused of heresy, and Pope Innocent III. hurled his bull 
against him. But the papal bull was so little regarded at Ox- 
ford, that it was even made a question whether it should not be 
ignominiously rejected : and when the offender was afterwards 
summoned to Lambeth, he was dismissed with a simple injunc- 
tion to abstain from diffusing his opinions. But the Pope and 
his myrmidons continued eager and constant in pursuit of him, 
and it was only owing to the circumstance that there was a 
schism in the papacy itself, one Pope reigning at Rome, and the 
other at Avignon, that cheated persecution of its intended 
victim."* 

"As long as Wickliffe confined, or nearly confined, his vehe- 
ment opposition to the vices of the clergy, or the anti-Christian 
spirit of the court of Rome, so long he obtained many and power- 
ful disciples, and could count on their attachment and fidelity. But 
no sooner did he attack the false doctrines of the Roman Church, 
than the enthusiasm, and the number of his followers declined, 
and even his protector, the Duke of Lancaster, strongly enjoined 
him to desist. He rejected transubstantiation, questioned the 
fact of purgatory, rejected auricular confession, held indulgences 
to be nothing but 'subtle merchandise of anti-Christian clerks 
whereby they magnified their own fictitious power, and instead 
of causing men to dread sin, encouraged them to wallow therein 
like swine.' He opposed celibacy of the clergy, monastic vows, 



) Waddington's Church History. 

10 



1 4 b REFORM BEFORE THE RE FORM A TION. 

and the vain and fantastic ceremonies of the Church. In con- 
sequence of these opinions, he was cited before the Convention 
at Oxford, and banished from that city. He retired to Lutter- 
worth, and after two more years actively employed in the offices 
of piety, he died in peace. After an interval of thirty years, his 
enemies, who did not burn him whilst living, when assembled 
in the Council at Constance, published that memorable edict, by 
which the body and bones of Wickliffe were to be taken from 
the ground, and thrown away from the burial of any Church. 
The decree met with a tardy obedience. After the space of thir- 
teen years, the remains were disinterred and burnt, and the 
ashes cast into the adjoining brook."* A poor, silly exhibition 
of spite that showed the persecuting spirit of the Roman Church, 
even more odiously than the burning of his living body would 
have done. 

Although Wickliffe did not accomplish what he wished in the 
reformation of the Church during his life time, yet his writings, 
and particularly his translation of the Bible, aided in preparing 
the way for the Reformers that came after him. 

We now come to a name still more prominent in history than 
that of Wickliffe, namely that of John Huss. He was a Bohe- 
mian, born in 1369. He was a Professor in the University of 
Prague, became the rector of it, and was also confessor to So- 
phia, Queen of Bohemia, and preacher in the Bethlehem Chapel 
at Prague. He had passed, like Luther, through deep personal 
religious experiences, which the defective teaching of the Church 
of Rome did not relieve. His sense of his own sinfulness was 
very great, and he could only find peace and comfort for his 
mind, in the doctrines of grace, and from justification by faith 
in a crucified Saviour. Instead of being properly taught this, by 
those whose duty it was to teach it, he had, like Luther, to work 
his way in darkness, and doubt, and perplexity, up to it. 

*) Waddington's Church History. 



r REFORM BEFORE THE REFORMATION. itf 

He perceived the corruption that prevailed in the Church, as 
well as the errors in doctrine, and he preached against them in 
his chapel, with great energy. "The Archbishop of Prague laid 
an accusation against him at Rome, and prohibited his preach- 
ing in tfie Bethlehem Chapel. The Pope cited him to Rome, 
but on the intercession of the King, and the University, a tem- 
porary truce was concluded between Huss and the Archbishop 
of Prague." * 

This truce did not last long. "The Pope John XXIII. sent 
his -emissaries into Bohemia to preach a crusade against the King 
of Naples, and to offer for sale, the usual indulgences to all who 
would embark, in it. Huss preached against them, and the people 
boldly interrupted the papal missionaries in their harangues. 
Three of the offenders were seized, and privately executed, but 
the blood which flowed from the prison into the street, betrayed 
their fate. The people rose, and having gained possession of 
their bodies, carried them in procession to the various Churches, 
chanting sacred anthems. They then buried them in the Beth- 
lehem Chapel, with the offerings usually placed on the tombs of 
martyrs. 1 ' f 

"The Pope now, in 1413, excommunicated Huss, and laid 
Prague under an interdict as long as it sheltered the reformer. 
Huss appealed to the tribunal of Jesus Christ, and retired from 
Prague to his birthplace." J The Council of Constance assem- 
bled soon afterwards, and it issued an immediate summons to 
Huss to appear before it. "Obedient to this order, and thinking 
himself secured from the rage of his enemies, by the Safe Con- 
duct which had been granted to him by the Emperor Sigismund, 
both for his journey to Constance, his residence in that city, and 
his return to his own country, John Huss appeared before the 
assembled Churchmen to defend his cause. By the most scan- 



*) Kurtz's Ch. Hist. |) Waddington's Eccles. Hist. %) Kurtz's Ch. Hist, 

10* 



148 REFORM BEFORE THE REFORMATION. 

dalous breach of public faith, his Safe Conduct was disregarded, 
he was thrown into prison, declared a heretic, because he dis- 
obeyed the order of the Council which commanded him to plead 
guilty against the dictates of his conscience, and he was burned 
alive on the 6th of July 1415." * % 

My hearers may perhaps be interested in hearing the sentence 
that was passed upon Huss. It is a very suggestive document. 
"When he was conducted before the Council on the morning of 
July 6, 1415, then holding its 15th session, and after various ar- 
ticles of accusation had been read, a sentence was passed to 
the following effect : 'That for several years, John Huss ha3 
seduced and scandalized the people by the dissemination of many 
doctrines manifestly heretical, and condemned by the Church ; 
that he has obstinately trampled upon the Keys of the Church, 
and the ecclesiastical censures ; that he has appealed to Jesus 
Christ as sovereign Judge, to the contempt of the ordinary judges 
of the Church, and that such an appeal is injurious, scandalous, 
and made in derision of ecclesiastical authority ; that he has per- 
sisted to the last in his errors, and even maintained them in full 
Council. It is therefore ordained that he be publicly deposed and 
degraded from holy orders as an obstinate and incorrigible here- 
tic' The prelates then proceeded to the office of degradation. 
He was stripped one by one, of his sacerdotal vestments ; the 
holy cup, which had been purposely placed in his hands, was 
taken from them, his hair was cut in such a manner as to lose 
every mark of the priestly character, and a crown of paper was 
placed on his head marked with hideous figures of demons, and 
that still more frightful word 'Heresiarch,' heretic. The prelates 
then piously devoted his soul to the infernal devils — 'animam 
tuam devovemus infernis Diabolis' — he was pronounced to be 
cut off from the ecclesiastical body, and being released from the 



*) Mosheim's Eccles. Hist. 



REFORM BEFORE THE REFORM A TION. i 4 g 

grasp of the Church, he was consigned as a layman, to the 
vengeance of the secular arm. It was in the character, then, of 
'advocate and defender of the Church,' that the Emperor now 
took charge of the culprit, and commanded his immediate exe- 
cution." * 

"The last, which was not perhaps the bitterest, of his suffer- 
ings, was endured with great constancy, and in a most peaceful 
and blessed spirit. On his way to the stake, he repeated pious 
prayers and penitential Psalms, and when the order was given 
to kindle the flames, he only uttered these words : 'Lord Jesus, 
I endure with humility this cruel death for Thy sake, and I pray 
Thee to pardon all my enemies.' The executioners performed 
their office, the martyr continued in fervent prayer, and it was 
not long before a rising volume of fire and smoke extinguished, 
at the same time, his voice and his life. His ashes were care- 
fully collected and cast into the lake, so that his followers might 
not bury them. But the miserable precaution was without all 
its effect, for his disciples scraped up the earth from the spot of 
his martyrdom, moistened it with their tears, and laid it rever- 
ently away in a martyr's sepulchre." j" 

"In less than a year from the execution of John Huss, the 
same scene of injustice and barbarity was acted a second time, 
though with some variety of circumstances, on the same polluted 
theatre. Jerome, master in theology in the University of Prague, 
and a layman, was the disciple of Huss. Huss was superior in 
age and authority, but Jerome was held to be more learned and 
eloquent. While the former presided in the chair, the latter de- 
livered his lectures in the schools ; and the same opinions were 
taught with equal zeal and effect, by the one as by the other. 
Accordingly, Jerome was summoned to Constance, soon after 
the meeting of the Council, and he appeared there on the 4th of 



*) W aldington's History of the Church. |) Ibid. 



ijo REFORM BEFORE THE REFORMATION. 

April 1415, not unprepared for the treatment that awaited hirn. 
At his first audience, on May 23, 1415, he exhibited great firm- 
ness, but at the second, which took place only thirteen days after 
the burning of Huss, he submitted after much insult and in- 
timidation, to make a formal retractation of his opinions." His 
conscience smote him. He was heartily sorry and ashamed on 
account of his weakness. He earnestly entreated to be granted 
another audience before the Council. It was finally accorded to 
him. When he appeared before the Council, "he recalled with 
sorrow and shame, his former retractation, and openly attributed 
the unworthy act to its real and only motive, the fear of a painful 
death. When he was brought to the stake, and bound to the post 
around which the faggots were piled, the executioner would have 
kindled the faggots behind his back. 'Place the fire before me/ 
he exclaimed, 'if I had dreaded it, I could have escaped it.' He 
was burnt May 30, 1416. ,T * 

Rome would tolerate no reform. She was wedded to her 
errors and corruptions. She would burn alive all who taught 
the true faith of Christ, and His Apostles. Her hands are red 
with the blood of the holy martyrs. With contemptible hypo- 
crisy, her Jesuit missionaries excuse her persecuting spirit, and 
apologize for her crimes, by alleging that those infamous burn- 
ings were not done by the ecclesiastical, but by the temporal, 
power. But when the prelates of the Council of Constance, gave 
John Huss, and Jerome of Prague over to the temporal power, 
both parties understood well enough, why. Both acted in con- 
cert, and both were the agents of a corrupt, persecuting Church. 
The attempt to shift the responsibility for the burning of these 
martyrs, from the Church to the State, is too glaringly absurd, 
and only covers those who make the attempt, with disgrace for 
their shameless hypocrisy. It is strange that even a Jesuit, can 
make it, and look his audience in the face without blushing. 

*) Waddington's History of the Church. 



REFORM BEFORE THE RE FOR MA TION. iji 

In close connection with the reformation doctrines and 
preaching of John Huss, and as the result of the movement he 
inaugurated, were the Bohemian Brethren. They demanded 
the communion in both kinds, the preaching of the Word of 
God plainly to the people, and that the clergy instead of employ- 
ing their zeal in the attainment of riches and power, should 
turn their thoughts to objects more suitable to their profession, 
and to be ambitious of living as became the successors of the 
holy Apostles. They insisted on reducing the religion of Jesus 
to primitive simplicity, on destroying the despotic power of the 
Popes, and in changing the form of divine worship from un- 
meaning ceremony to a more simple and edifying service. They 
suffered much hardship and oppression, yet their numbers 
steadily increased, through their constancy in their faith, and 
the purity of their morals. They hailed Luther's movement 
with hearty rejoicing. "It is true that the evangelical principles 
of their faith, were not unmixed with some erroneous notions, 
but it is no less certain that when Luther was engaged in the 
accomplishment of his mission, he was welcomed by a numer- 
ous body of hereditary reformers who rejected, and whose an- 
cestors had rejected, the sacrifice of the Mass, Purgatory, Tran- 
substantiation, prayers for the dead, the adoration of images, 
and who confirmed their spiritual emancipation by renouncing 
the authority of the Pope."* 

We pass next to a celebrated Italian champion of reform in 
the person of Jerome Savonarola, who was born at Ferrara in 
1452. He was of an illustrious family. He became a Domini- 
can monk, and assumed the character of a prophet. The sub- 
ject of his preaching was "reform and penitence — reform in the 
discipline of the Church, in the disorders of the clergy, in the 
morals of the people — reform instant and immediate, ere the 



*) Waddington's Church History. 



132 REFORM BEFORE THE REFORMATION, 

tempest of the divine vengeance, which was already impending- 
over Italy, should descend and overwhelm it. He made no 
appeals to reason, none to the ordinary principles,, or even pas- 
sions of men. It was in the name of heaven, that he com- 
manded them to amend ; it was inspiration from above which 
he claimed ; the unerring prescience of imminent calamities,, 
which filled him with eloquence, and armed his eloquence with 
authority and terror* It was the word of an offended God r 
clothed in thunder, announcing the approach of desolation." 

His preaching thrilled the masses of the people, and stirred 
them to the wildest excitement. "It was in vain that the Pope 
thundered from the Vatican. It was in vain that the clergy re- 
fused to bury the bodies of any who believed the announcement 
of the prophet. The people thronged to listen to his sermons, 
and rushing from the churches, assembled on the streets, crying 
'vivaChristor"* 

His enemies, supported by the Pope and the priests, waited 
for an opportunity to destroy him. That opportunity came. 
"He was seized, imprisoned, tortured, and immediately on the 
arrival of two papal legates from Pope Alexander VI, he was 
condemned to death, and burnt at the stake. His ashes were 
cast into the river Arno" so that they could not be buried. His 
followers became scattered, and no permanent results followed 
his preaching. 

We must yet mention Erasmus, the distinguished scholar^ 
born in Rotterdam in 1467. He, with John Reuchlin, contri- 
buted largely to the revival of learning, and in a degree,, to the 
reformation of religion. "His writings rendered the highest 
service to the first reformers, he stigmatized numerous abuses,, 
he rejected the scholastic divinity, and recommended and facili- 
tated the study of the Bible, and the Fathers, he covered with 

*\ Waddin&ton's Church History. 



REFORM BEFORE THE REFORMATION. 133 

ridicule and contempt, the vices of the monks, and their love 
for the ignorance in which they grovelled. By such means as 
these, he contributed to the success of the Reformation, even 
more perhaps than he himself designed. For though by no 
means indifferent to the interests of religion, he was fearful of 
all great practical changes, and could never shake off that irres- 
olute timidity, so commonly associated with literary habits."* 

He never really broke with Rome. He could not be the great 
Reformer of the Church. He was no Luther. 

Such is a rapid sketch of the efforts at the Reformation of the 
errors and corruptions of the Church, that were made before the 
time of Luther, and of the men by whom they were made. I 
have purposely done little more than quote literally the testimony 
of our well known, standard Church Historians. Every fact 
stated, is therefore supported by unquestionable proof. It is a 
mournful history. It suggests some reflections: 

1. The sad fate of Reformers. Evil becomes strongly en- 
trenched in Church and State. It is hard to eradicate it when 
it once gains possession. To rectify the wrong is at once a diffi- 
cult and a thankless task. Men felt that there was great corrup- 
tion in the Church, and many made efforts to correct it, but they 
were hated, maligned, imprisoned, tortured, and burnt at the 
stake. It was to benefit and save others, that they labored and 
died. The welfare of thousands and millions was involved in 
the result of their efforts. They were noble benefactors of their 
race. But they were ill requited for their pains. They perished 
in a noble cause. Their names should be held in grateful re- 
membrance. Although unsuccessful, they merit the respect and 
gratitude of posterity. 

2. Reformation must not be superficial. Radical evils call 
for a radical remedy. The change of some of the outward forms 



f ) W aldington's Church History. 



154 REFORM BEFORE THE REFORMATION. 

of corruption, will not remove the corruption itself. Depravity 
of the nature, requires the regeneration of the nature. Whilst 
some of the noble men whose history and labors we have sketch- 
ed, seemed to have some conception of the real nature of the 
evil, and the true remedy for it, others, and the largest number, 
only saw the external symptoms of it, without perceiving how 
deep in the doctrinal system of the Church of Rome, the disease 
was seated. It needed a thorough change of the heart of the system. 
Some of those noble men, came very near having a proper con- 
ception of the Church's needs, yet failed either to attain a full 
appreciation of its wants, or knowing, were unable to accomplish 
what they clearly saw ought to be done. 

Rome prated much about Augustine, and yet it was thoroughly 
infected with the heresy of Pelagius. It was unsound in doctrine, 
and therefore it was corrupt in practice. The difference between 
the Reformation of Luther, and the reformations proposed by 
most of the men that preceded him was this : they for the most 
part, labored to rectify the manners of their age without chang- 
ing its doctrinal system ; he struck at the root of the mischief in 
the false doctrines which Rome held. The Church must have 
a purer faith, before it could have a purer practice. 

3. Rome does not reform. No truth is more strikingly taught 
by the history of the efforts, and sad fate, of the reformers before 
Luther, and of the treatment of Luther himself, than this. The 
Church of Rome has in it no principle of Reform. As a system 
it does not become better. It boasts that it never changes. What 
it once was, it always is. It may bend, for a time, to a force too 
strong for it to resist, but of itself, and in its essential nature, it 
never changes. During all the centuries in which these noble 
men lived and labored, and suffered and died, to reform the 
evils that existed so notoriously, Rome in its head, and heart, 
and membership, held fast to the evils, would tolerate no reform, 
persecuted to death those who sought to correct the wrongs, and 



REFORM BEFORE THE REFORMATION. ijj 

it held on firmly to all its corruptions, to the end. There was 
no reform in it. 

The same is true still, for there is no reform in it now. Some 
men erroneously think it is now changed. But it is a mistake. 
It is the same now as always. It has retracted no error. It 
has renounced no false doctrine. It has abandoned no wrong 
practice. It has relinquished no haughty claim. It has recently, 
in the decrees of the Vatican Council, re-affirmed all that has 
preceded. It has in the strongest manner, by a solemn Syllabus 
issued by Pope Pius IX, anathematized all who hold that the 
Roman Pontiffs have transgressed the limits of their power, 
Prop. 23 — all who hold that the Church (of course, the Roman 
Church, for the Pope acknowledges no other) may not employ 
force, Prop. 24 — all who hold that the State may define the 
civil rights and province of the (Roman) Church, Prop. 19 — all 
who hold that the civil immunity of the (Roman) Church and its 
ministers depends upon civil rights, Prop. 30 — all who hold that 
the instruction of youth separate from the (Roman) faith and from 
the power of the (Roman) Church, may be approved, Prop. 48 — 
all who hold that knowledge of philosophy, of morals, and of 
civil law may decline to be guided by (Roman) ecclesiastical au- 
thority, Prop. 57 — all who hold that marriage has any binding 
force that is not sacramentally contracted (of course, by a Roman 
priest) Prop. 73 — all who hold that the (Roman) religion should 
not be held as the only religion of the State to the exclusion of 
all other modes of worship, Prop. 77 — all who hold that per- 
sons coming to reside in Roman Catholic countries, may enjoy 
the public exercise of their own worship, Prop. 78. As the Pope 
acknowledges no Church but the Roman Church, to be a Chris- 
tian Church, I have properly so translated the word. 

These monstrous propositions are cited from the Pope's own 
official document, and the numbers given, so that every one may 
turn to the original, and satisfy himself that the citation is cor- 



156 REFORM BEFORE THE REFORMATION. 

reet. Now, we must take a church, or any other organized 
body at its own official utterances. A church is governed by 
its Greed, its Constitution, its laws, it's official declarations. So 
is every organized society, or body of men. It is not what the 
individuals say, as individuals, by which our opinion of it is to 
be formed. We ask what is its Greed, its Constitution, its offi- 
cial character ? What are its official, authorized utterances ? 
What claims do its official and duly authorized heads make for 
it ? The Pope is the official head of the Church of Rome. It 
claims divine authority, and even infallibility for its official dog- 
mas. Just 15 years ago, this official, divine, and infallible head 
uttered the things Thave quoted above, in formal propositions, 
advancing these outrageous claims, and anathematizing all who 
do not hold and allow them. The Pope is not a child to amuse 
or frighten the world with words which he does not mean. Nor 
are we children to be scared by blustering that is not meant to 
be taken as uttered. Rome certainly means what it so solemnly 
utters. By its official utterances then, issued Ex Cathedra, put 
forth a few years ago only, at Rome, by its official head, it has 
re-affirmed all the corrupt and false doctrines, and all the des- 
potic and hateful claims, of the past, has justified all that the 
past has done, claims to have the same power, and the right to 
use the same force, and to be the same despotic autocrat in 
Church and State that Rome always was. It tells, in short, 
that it has not changed, does not change, and will not change. 
Since Protestantism is now paramount in the world, and its 
principles give tone to the spirit of toleration that governs the 
world, Rome does not put any man to death for exposing its 
errors. I can speak as boldly as I please about it, and Rome 
dare not touch me. But why ? Not because Rome has changed, 
but because Protestantism has created such a public sentiment, 
that Rome feels it to be for her own interest not to touch me. 
A stroke at me, would be a blow at herself. This is the reason, 



REFORM BEFORE THE REFORMATION. 137 

and the only reason. Rome is just what she always was. Give 
her again the power, and we would again see the enforcement 
of the power. Take Protestantism away, and the scenes of 
persecution, described on the dark pages of history, would be 
re-enacted. Nothing is surer than this. 

4. God only could help. And He did help. Vain was the 
help of man. In due time He helped. He waited long, but in 
His own time He helped. The work was His. It was too great 
for man. God alone could do it. And He did it. He raised 
up the man of His right hand, and it was done. We now enjoy 
the benefit of the doing of it. The world is now rid of Popish 
darkness, and corruption, and the fierce spirit of Roman power. 
It is under restraint. It deserves no thanks for it. It has done 
nothing to deserve thanks. It will not admit that it has made 
any change to merit any thanks. So be it. Protestantism is 
paramount. It keeps Romanism in check. It dare not do as it 
once did. It can slay and burn no longer. God be thanked 
for it. 



DISCOURSE VII. 



HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE REFORMATION. 

Psalm 80: 17 — 19. — Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right hand, 
upon the son of man whom thou madest strong for thyself. So 
will we not go back from thee. Quicken us, and we will call upon 
thy name. Turn us again, O Lord God of hosts, cause thy face to 
shine, and we shall be saved. 

I PROPOSE to occupy the evening hour in giving a rapid sketch 
of that memorable event in the History of the Church, the 
Lutheran Reformation of the 16th Century. We have already 
devoted an evening to the consideration of the Evils in the 
Church that made the Reformation necessary ; and another to 
the account of the Efforts at Reform that were made by various 
parties and sects during the centuries just previous to the Refor- 
mation by Luther. We have now come in the order of events, 
to the great Reformation itself. So many events crowd into the 
History of the Reformation, that it may be difficult to compress 
into one discourse, a complete account. But we propose to give 
as full an outline as the time will allow. 

The text describes the great event to which this History re- 
lates. There was a vine that God had planted. It had been 
devastated, and wasted, and plucked, and devoured. It was in 
a sad state of adversity. It needed deliverance and a deliverer. 
In due time God raised up a deliverer, and with him deliverance 
came. He that was thus raised up was "the man of God's right 
hand." God made him strong for the work that God had for 
him to do. By his instrumentality the adverse course of events, 
was turned back into the channels of safety. By the vital doc- 
trines of the primitive £hurch, and the true, evangelical Church 



HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE RE FORMA TION. ij<? 

life being restored, God quickened, revived, and saved the 
Church — the vine that God had planted, but that had almost 
perished. It had been sadly plucked, and wasted, and devoured, 
but it was now happily delivered. God turned us again, and 
caused his face to shine, and we were saved. 

The instrument chosen by Providence for the great work of 
the Reformation of the Church from the errors in doctrine, and 
the corruption in practice, with which it had been so long af- 
flicted, was Martin Luther. He was born at Eisleben in Sax- 
ony, November 10, 1483. He was of humble parentage, his 
father being a miner by trade. His parents were devout mem- 
bers of the Church of Rome, and they reared their child in all 
the strictness of the Romish religion. They removed from Eis- 
leben to Mansfeldt, and there- young Luther enjoyed the advan- 
tages of the school at that place until he was 14 years old. 
From this school he was transferred to Eisenach, where he made 
commendable progress in the learning of those times. Here he 
supported himself, in part at least, by singing from door to door, 
and accepting the aims that were bestowed upon him. He at- 
tracted the attention of a kind-hearted woman, Ursula Cotta, 
whose name is well known as the patroness of Luther. From 
Eisenach he went to Erfurth, where he entered the University 
at that place, in which he completed his preparatory education. 
His father had intended him for the legal profession, but his 
finding a copy of the Bible in the University Library, and the 
assassination of one of his intimate College friends, as also the 
terror produced by being overtaken by a terrific thunder storm, 
all combined to turn his attention in the direction of the Church, 
and unknown to his father, and contrary to his wishes, he en- 
tered the cloister, and became an Augustinian Monk, in 1505. 
The discipline of the cloister was excessively severe, and with 
fasting, and other bodily mortifications, Luther was almost re- 
duced to the brink of the grave. His mental conflict was tor- 



i6o HIS TO RICA L SKE TCH OF THE RE FORMA TION. 

rible. His excessively rigorous observance of the rules of mo- 
nastic life, could administer no relief to his troubled mind. His 
soul needed, what did not exist in the religious instruction of 
the times. The Superior of the cloister, and his other spiritual 
advisers, knew nothing themselves, of the true way of salvation 
through Christ, and they could not administer to a heart bur- 
dened with its own sinfulness, bypointing it to the Saviour. It 
was Staupitz, the Vicar General, a man informed and experi- 
enced beyond his times, that finally imparted to Luther the in- 
struction which he needed, and he found comfort and peace for 
his soul in the great doctrine of Justification by faith in the right- 
eousness of Christ alone. 

This soul experience of Luther was of great v T alue to the work 
of the Reformation. From his own heart's needs, and his own 
experience of the efficacy of the grace of Christ, he appreciated 
at its proper value, the great doctrine of Justification by faith, 
and the kind of Reformation which the Church needed. It 
contributed largely in giving shape and character to the whole 
of Protestantism. 

Here it will be in place to draw an outline of the character of 
Luther. It may, perhaps, best be done in the words of the great 
Church historian, Mosheim. Says he : "The qualities or talents 
that distinguished Luther, were not of a common or ordinary 
kind. His genius was truly great and unparalleled ; his memory 
vast, and tenacious ; his patience in supporting trials, difficulties, 
and labors, incredible ; his magnanimity, invincible and unshaken 
by the vicissitudes of human affairs ; and his learning most ex- 
tensive considering the age in which he lived. All this will be 
acknowledged, even by his enemies, at least by such of them as 
are not totally blinded by a spirit of partiality and faction. He 
was deeply versed in the theology and philosophy that were in 
vogue in the schools during this century, and he taught them 
both, with great reputation and success in the University of 



, HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE RE FORMA 7 ION. 161 

Wittenberg. As a philosopher, he embraced the doctrine of the 
Nominalists, which was the system adopted by his order, while 
in divinity, he followed chiefly the sentiments of Augustine, but 
in both, he preferred the decisions of Scripture, and the dictates 
of right reason, to the authority and opinions of fallible men. It 
would be equally rash and absurd to represent this great man 
as exempt from error, and free from infirmities and defects; yet 
if we except the contagious effects of the age in which he lived, 
and of the religion in which he had been brought up, we shall 
perhaps find few points of his character, that render him liable to 
reproach." * 

This is a noble and well merited testimony by a learned His- 
torian, whose work has long been a standard book of Church 
History, in behalf of the high character of Luther for learning, 
integrity, and purity of heart and life. It may be proper for me 
to dwell a few moments longer on the vindication of Luther's 
character, before I proceed with the history. The emissaries of 
Romanism delight to vilify Luther's character. It has been re- 
cently done in this place, in the most offensive manner, by a 
Jesuit emissary sent here to advance the cause of Rome. It is 
charged that Luther's motives in opposing the sale of Indulg- 
ences, were impure and unworthy, and arose from the affront 
put upon the Augustinian order of monks, of which Luther was 
a member, by the Pope in taking away from his order, the busi- 
ness of selling Indulgences, and giving it to the Dominicans. This 
charge was started by Hume, and has been repeated ever since 
against the clearest testimony to the contrary. The fact is that 
for 300 years, the Dominicans had always been the sellers of 
Indulgences. It is untrue, therefore, that the Augustinians had 
been usually employed in the business. It is further true that 
the sale of Indulgences had become so odious, that instead of 



) Mosheiin's Eccles. History. 

11 



1 62 HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE RE FORMA TION. « 

Luthers's taking it as an affront that he and his order were not 
employed in selling them, that respectable persons at that time, 
both of the Augustinian and Dominican orders of monks, were 
so disgusted with the whole business, that they were unwilling 
to have any thing to do with them. And it is a final fact, and 
one that clinches the falsehood of the charge, that "the very com- 
mission which is supposed to hav" e excited the envy of Luther, 
was offered by Leo, to the General of the Franciscans, and was 
refused, both by him and his Order." This fact is stated by 
Walch, a very trustworthy Historian, whose statements will not 
be disputed. This charge is therefore plainly false, and falls to 
the ground. 

It is amusing, rather than otherwise, to listen to the abuse that 
is heaped on the head of Luther. My hearers have no doubt 
often heard from Romish lips, some such words. But in order 
that all may know how Jesuits speak about that great and good 
man, I will quote a delectable excerpt from Damianus, one of 
the first historians of the Society of Jesuits, from his work "Syn- 
optical History of the Society of Jesus," published in 1640. Here 
are some of his expressions : "Luther subdued by rage, ambi- 
tion, and lust, quits a religious life." — "Sacrilegious Luther con- 
tracts an incestuous marriage with a holy Virgin of God" — 
"Luther declaims like a fury against the Holy See." — "Luther 
detracts from the veneration and worship of the sacred rites of 
the Church." — "The sacrifice of the mass, the eucharist, the 
mother of God, the tutelary saints, the indulgences of the Pon- 
tiffs, were attacked with fury by Luther." — "Luther, the dis- 
grace of Germany, the hog of Epicurus, the destroyer of Europe, 
the accursed portent of the universe, the abomination of God 
and man." * Such are the choice expressions used by a Jesuit 
historian to designate Luther and his work, and they are reiter- 



•) Viller's Essay. 



HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE REFORMA TION. 163 

ated now by priests and emissaries who claim that they never use 
hard words in their controversies with their opponents. 

The marriage of Luther and Catherine de Bora is made an 
especial subject of bitter reproach against Luther. That he and 
Catharine de Bora did not keep the vows of celibacy that neither 
of them ought ever to have made, that were not holy but unholy, 
and which it was the duty of both no longer to keep, when they 
were convinced that those vows were wrong, is not to the re- 
proach, but to the honor of both Luther and Catharine. If ever 
a marriage was entered into honorably, purely, conscientiously, 
and with fervent prayer for divine direction, this was such a 
marriage. All who have read the history of it, that relates the 
spirit in which it was entered, the devout manner in which it 
was solemnized, and the conscientious motives that led to it, 
know this. And when we take into consideration the filthy abo- 
minations that prevailed at that time, in the monasteries and 
convents of the Church of Rome, and the scandalous lives that 
were led, both by priests and nuns, we do not wonder that such 
men would endeavor to bespatter with filth, and load with abuse, 
a pure minded man and woman, like Luther and Catharine de 
Bora, when entering into an honorable marriage according to 
the laws of God and man. Nothing better could be expected 
from that source. The only wonder is that decent men will re- 
peat the slander now. 

We will now proceed with our history. The occasion that 
first aroused Luther's opposition'to Rome, was the sale of In- 
dulgences in Germany, by John Tetzel. Leo X. wished to com- 
plete the magnificent Church of St. Peter in Rome, and wanted 
money. He resorted to a usual mode of raising funds, that of 
selling Indulgences to the people, for the release of their souls, 
and the souls of their friends, from Purgatory. The depths of 
Purgatory constituted an exhaustless mine of gold at that time. 

Tetzel was just the man for the business. His bold and shame- 

11* 



164 HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE REFORMATION. 

less impudence, however, outraged all decent minds and hearts, 
Luther's honest nature revolted at it. He rose, at once, in earn- 
est opposition to it. He preached against it in public, and at the 
confessional he would not recognize the certificates of Indul- 
gences which the penitents offered to him. 

Moreover, to signalize still more forcibly his opposition to the 
shameless traffic, he nailed, on the 31st of October 1517, 95 
Theses on the door of the Castle Church at Wittenberg, in 
which he took strong ground against the whole system. They 
went to the root of the matter. These Theses excited extraor- 
dinary attention. Like a match cast into a powder magazine, 
they produced an explosion that shook the whole Christian 
world. 

An attempt was made to answer Luther's Theses, by Sylvester 
de Priero, and by Hoogstrat, and subsequently, by a more for- 
midable champion, Dr. Eck. Luther stood his ground, and re- 
futed their arguments with great power and success. 

At first Leo X. paid little attention to the controversy, and 
thought it only a small quarrel among monks. But perceiving 
at length the large proportions which it was attaining, he sum- 
moned Luther to appear at Rome within 80 days, to answer to 
charges that were entered against him. At this juncture, a wise 
and noble man appeared upon the scene, to whose prudent and 
firm counsels, the Reformation is greatly indebted, under God, 
for its success. It was Frederick the Wise, Elector of Saxony. 
He was a strong and good *man. He befriended Luther all 
through his conflict with Rome, until death removed him. He 
so stoutly remonstrated against Luther's being dragged to Piome, 
that the Pope consented to send Cardinal Cajetan as his legate, 
to hold a Diet at Augsburg, to try the case. Cajetan was impe- 
rious, and demanded an unconditional surrender by Luther, of 
everything involved in the contest. Luther, of course, would 
not do that, and after a vain endeavor to have his cause inves- 



HISTORICAL SKE TCH OF THE REFORMA TION. 165 

ligated according to its merits, he appealed to the Pope when 
better informed, and left Augsburg. 

As Cajetan was an obstinate legate to deal with, the Pope laid 
the failure of the Augsburg Diet, on his imprudence, and appointed 
another papal legate of a much more mild and discreet temper. 
Charles Miltitz, the papal chamberlain, was sent into Germany, 
on this mission. He was an adroit and insinuating politician. 
He professed to condemn Tetzel, and to flatter and justify Luther 
in his opposition to the way in which the sale of Indulgences 
had been carried on by him. He so won upon Luther, that al- 
though he still adhered to the great doctrine of justification by 
faith alone, without any merit of good works, yet he consented 
to apologize for the violence of his language in denouncing his 
opponents, and wrote a very submissive letter to the Pope, prom- 
ising to be silent if his opponents would be still. 

But this truce did not last long. In the nature of things it 
could not last long. Eck, whom Luther had handled so severely, 
longed for a chance to humble his adversary, and for this pur- 
pose a disputation was arranged between him, and Luther and 
Carlstadt, to take place at Leipsic. It excited great attention. 
For eight days the debate was held with Carlstadt, and fourteen 
days with Luther, on the Pope's supremacy, repentance, indul- 
gences, and purgatory. It was a heated discussion, and the 
friends of both claimed the victory. The result, however, was 
beneficial to the Reformation, as light necessarily illumined the 
prevailing darkness, and the evils of the times were so flagrant, 
that they could not bear public discussion. 

It was immediately after this Leipsic discussion with Eck, 
I that we hear for the first time the name of Philip Melanchthon. 
He was Professor of Greek in the University of Wittenberg, and 
j a finished scholar. He was a man of great mildness and gentle- 
ness of spirit. He became henceforth, a firm friend of Luther, 
and of the cause of the Reformation. It is remarkable that two 



1 66 HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE REFORMATIO jV. 

men of such opposite tempers, became so intimately associated 
in the same great work. The friendship that now commenced, 
lasted with uninterrupted strength until Luther's death. 

Events followed each other rapidly in the progress of this 
history. Eck hastened to Rome chafed and mortified by the 
treatment which his part of the contest at Leipsic had received 
from the severe blows administered by Luther. There, he, and 
others of similar feelings and views as to the proper course to 
be pursued, so influenced the , Court of Rome, that the Pope 
issued a Bull against Luther, dated June 15, 1520, in which 41 
heresies were cited from Luther's writings, and solemnly con- 
demned, his works ordered to be publicly burned, and he him- 
self was again commanded, on pain of excommunication, to ap- 
pear in Rome within 60 days, confess and retract his errors, 
and throw himself upon the clemency of the Pontiff. 

This was regarded, even by the judicious friends of the Pope, 
as an unwise and rash proceeding. It produced just the oppo- 
site effect, of that intended. Instead of intimidating Luther, it 
made him still more firm and determined. He now took the 
boldest step possible. He resolved to cut himself entirely loose 
from the ecclesiastical system of Popery. For this purpose he 
had a pile of wood, and other combustible materials, erected on 
the 10th December 1520, outside of the walls of the city of Wit- 
tenberg, and there in the presence of an immense multitude of 
people of all ranks and orders, he burned both the Pope's Bull y 
and the decretals and canons relating to the Pope's supreme 
jurisdiction. The Rubicon was now passed, and there was no 
retreat possible. He had taken his stand, and he would not 
abandon it. He had bidden defiance to Rome, and he would 
maintain the cause of truth, let what would happen to himself. 

The thunders were soon heard from Rome, in reply to this 
bold step of Luther's. In less than a month after Luther burned 
the Pope's Bull, a second Bull was issued against him from 



HISTORICAL SKE TCH OF THE RE FORMA TION. 167 

Rome, dated January 6, 1521, denouncing the papal ban upon 
him, and expelling him from the communion of the church, for 
having insulted the majesty, and disowned the supremacy of the 
Pope. 

Luther understood his position thus: — He withdrew from the 
jurisdiction of the Pope, but not from the Christian Church — the 
Church Catholic. He made the just and important distinction 
between the papacy and the Catholic Church. He says: "The 
Pope is not jure divino, or according to the Word of God, the 
head of all Christendom, for this belongs to one alone, who is Jesus 
Christ; but he is only bishop or pastor of the Church at Rome, 
and of others who have voluntarily, or through human authority 
(that is, through the political magistracy,) joined themselves to 
him, not under him, as a lord, but equal with him, Christians, 
and his brethren and companions, as the ancient Councils and 
the age of St. Cyprian show. The Pope claims that no Christian 
can be saved unless he is obedient and subject to the Pontiff in 
all things that he wishes, says, or does. All of which is nothing 
else but asserting that even if you believe in Christ, and are in 
possession of all things in him that are essential to salvation, it 
avails nothing, and all is vain if you do not hold me as your 
lord, and are not subject and obedient to me. When at the 
same time, it is evident, that the holy Christian Church was 
without a Pope, upwards of 500 years at least; and even to this 
day, the Greek Church, and those of many other languages, have 
never been, and are not now, under the Pope. Consequently it 
is, as has been frequently said, a human device, unadvised, use- 
less, and ineffectual ; for the holy Christian Church can exist 
without such a head, and it might have existed in better circum- 
stances, if such head had not been reared up by the devil. Nor 
is Popery of any use in the Church; for it exercises no Christian 
office, and thus the Christian Church must continue and stand 
without the Pope. Therefore, the Church can never be better 



i68 HISTORICAL SKE TCH OF THE REFORMA TION. 

governed and preserved than by us all living under one head — 
Christ — the bishops being all equal with respect to their office, 
though unequal with respect to their endowments, and diligently 
adhering together in conformity of doctrine, faith, sacraments, 
prayer, and works of love &c. as St. Jerome writes, that the 
priests at Alexandria ruled the Church in one collective body ; 
and so did the Apostles, and all bishops in the whole circle of 
Christianity, until the Pope elevated his head above all."* 

This was Luther's position. And it is the correct one. The 
church Catholic, and the Pope are distinct things. The Pope is 
not essential to the existence and integrity of the Christian Church. 
The Roman Church then, and the Roman Church now, make 
the two identical. It admits of no distinction between them. 
With them the papacy is the Christian Church. By the decree 
of the Vatican Council, the papacy cannot be denied "without 
loss of faith and salvation." This is a baseless papal assump- 
tion. The papacy and the Church Catholic are two things, and 
by no means the same. "The papacy, indeed, by the ambitious 
dexterity of the Roman Pontiffs, incorporated itself by degrees 
into the Church, but it was a preposterous supplement, and was 
really as foreign to its genuine",, apostolic, and Christ ordained, 
"Constitution, as a new citadel, erected by a successful usurper 
would be to an ancient city. Luther set out, and acted upon the 
distinction. He went out of the usurper's citadel, but he re- 
mained in the ancient and noble city."f He remained, and no 
corrupt Pontiff could drive him out. He was a member, not of 
the Pope's Church, but nevertheless of Christ's Ghurch. Is not 
this distinction real and true ? The Roman Ghurch claims to be 
the Catholic Church, but it never was the Ghurcjj. Catholic. The 
word Catholic, as you know, means universal, general, the 
whole. Rut the Roman Church never was the whole Church — 



Smaleald Articles. Art. 4. f) Mosheim's Hist. Dr. M , Claines > Note. 



HISTORICAL SKE TCH OF THE REFORMA TION. i6g 

the Church universal — the Catholic Church. The Greek Church, 
for example, which embraced in 1874, a population of 74,800,- 
000 persons, and extending over the whole of Russia, and the 
Eastern countries of Asia and Greece, never acknowledged the 
Pope of Rome as the head of the Church. There has always 
been nearly twice as large a non Romish Christian population 
of the world, as Romish. The number of professing Christians 
outside of the Church of Rome is now, and has always been, 
greater, than the number within it. The Church of Rome, has, 
therefore, never been the Catholic Church. It has never been 
the majority, much less the whole. Greeks, and Armenians, 
and Waldenses, and Protestants are as much members of the 
Church Catholic, as the Roman Church. Christ never constitu- 
ted the Church of Rome the Catholic Church. The Church in 
all the world, during the first 600 years after Christ, never 
acknowledged the papacy as the Church Catholic. It is a false 
assumption, and an arrogant claim on the part of the Pope, and 
his subjects, that the papacy alone is the Church Catholic and 
the Christian Church, and that he who has true Christian faith, 
but is outside of the papacy, is therefore outside of the Christian 
Church. This is false. True faith in Christ, and Christian 
Baptism in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, makes 
us members of the Christian Church, the Church Catholic. It 
is not the profession of belief in the Pope, or submission to the 
Romish hierarchy, that makes us members of the Christian 
Church, the Church Catholic. This is a mere human" invention. 
It is not Christ's ordaining. The Gospel of Christ knows noth- 
ing of this Popish assumption. The first 600 years of the 
Church's life, knew nothing of this Popish assumption. It is 
the bold, unauthorized, unhistorical, unscriptural assumption of 
proud and haughty men, who, without any divine warrant what- 
ever, claim to be Christ's vicars and vicegerents over the whole 
Christian Church in the whole world. Luther understood this. 



ijo HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE RE FORMA TION. 

He separated the Christian Church, the Church Catholic, from 
Popery. Connection with the papacy, was not necessary to 
connection with the Christian Church. Wherever the Word 
and the Sacraments were in their purity, there was the Church. 
True faith and the true Sacraments make the true Church. He 
had both. He was therefore in the true Church. All since, 
and every where, who have the Word of God, and the Sacra- 
ments — the true faith and the true Sacraments— are in the true 
Church. This principle cannot be overthrown. The Romanists 
attempt to overthrow it, but they cannot. They claim that out- 
side of the Romish Hierarchy there is no salvation. Rut this 
is the false assumption of a huge, but despotic, and self-consti- 
tuted hierarchy. God's Word knows nothing of it. The history 
of the Christian Church in its purest and best days knows noth- 
ing of it. Luther was right in rejecting it. The act of burning 
the Pope's Bull, and the decretals proclaiming the Pope's Supre- 
macy, was his public and formal protest against it. The posi- 
tion he then took, was the right position. The entire Protestant 
Church from that day to this, has justified his act, and has main- 
tained the same position. 

We must now return to the history. The case was now taken 
up by the Emperor, Charles V. He had appointed a Diet of the 
Princes and Estates of the Empire to be held at Worms, January 
28, 1521. A papal brief was sent to the Diet in February, ur- 
ging the Emperor to enforce, with the power of the Empire, the 
Bull against Luther. Luther was accordingly summoned to 
Worms, from Wittenberg for trial, as the members of the 
Diet refused to enforce the Bull without affording Lutheran 
opportunity to be heard. An imperial Safe Conduct was 
granted him, but as it was violated in the case of John Huss, 
Luther's friends were by no means assured of his safety. They 
remonstrated with him, and wished to prevent his going to 
Worms. But his fearless spirit defied all sense of danger, and 



HISTORICAL SHE TCH OF THE RE FORMA TION. 171 

he uttered that memorable declaration that he "would go to 
Worms if there were as many devils there as tiles on the houses." 
He pleaded his cause before that grand assembly of Emperor, 
and Princes and legates, and bishops, and estates with undaunted 
courage and boldness. He appealed to the Word of God in 
proof of the truth of the doctrines he taught. He resisted all 
the threats that were uttered against him to retract any doctrine 
he held, or thing he had done, unless he could be convinced 
from the Word of God that it was either untrue or wrong. After 
making one of the most eloquent and forcible defences ever 
uttered before any assembly, he concluded with the well known 
sentence, that has become immortal: "Here I stand, I cannot 
do otherwise, God help me, Amen." 

He quietly left Worms, April 26, 1521, and travelled on his 
way to return to Wittenberg. On the 26th of May, after his 
friend and protector, the Elector of Saxony, and other princes 
favorable to him, had left Worms, the papal legate succeeded in 
obtaining from the Diet, a decree, called the Edict of Worms, 
couched in the severest terms, pronouncing condemnation against 
Luther and all his adherents. Gould this Edict have been car- 
ried out, according to its terms, Luther and all who adhered to 
him, would have been put to death, their property confiscated, 
his books burnt, and the Reformation would have been at an 
end. But this savage decree overreached itself. The times 
when it was common to burn heretics, as in the case of John 
Huss, and Jerome of Prague, had gone by. The German 
Princes were not so easily cowed by the Pontiff and his emis- 
saries, as were the Italians. They felt that they were right, 
and they dared to maintain it. The noble Elector of Saxony, 
particularly, was equal to the occasion. He understood well 
the danger which threatened Luther, and he had prepared a 
mode of rescue. He sent several masked knights well armed, 
and their faces concealed by their helmets, to waylay Luther as 



172 HISTORICAL SKE TCH OF THE REFORMA TION. 

he quietly travelled on bis way. They rushed out from their 
places of concealment in a dark wood of the Thuringian Forest, 
with loud voices they arrested and held the driver, seized Luther 
with feigned roughness, pulled off his robe, put on him a military 
garb, fastened a false beard on his face, placed him on a horse, 
rode rapidly a long roundabout way through the forest, and finally 
reached with him the Castle of Wartburg, where he was concealed. 

A few of his friends knew where he was, but the great mass 
of the people did not. They became very much excited with in- 
dignation at the Pope. They supposed that their favorite, was 
treacherously murdered. The Pope and his cause became doubly 
odious to the people of Germany, and even Luther's involuntary 
imprisonment contributed to the success of the cause. 

Luther was not idle in this castle, which he called his Patmos. 
It gave him the opportunity to perform a great work which re- 
quired leisure, and which his busy life heretofore, did not allow 
him to perform. The Bible was a concealed book. It was hid- 
den in the dead languages. There were only a few copies on 
the shelves of the libraries in the Universities, and none in the 
language of the' people. The Reformation was founded on the 
Word of God. The people ought to have it in their houses, and 
be able to read it in their own common language. Here was the 
leisure for him to translate it. He improved the opportunity. 
He commenced it, and persevered in it, and with the help of 
competent assistants, it was finally completed. It was a great 
work. It gave the Bible to the people. It made the Word of 
God an open book. It enabled every one to read for himself, 
in. his own native tongue, what God has spoken to man. So 
complete is Luther's translation of the Bible into the German 
language, that no other has been made, and his translation is the 
version that is every where read in our German Churches, and 
by our German families. It was a noble work. His period of 
forced leisure in the Castle of Wartburg, was well employed. 



HISTORICAL SKE TCH OF THE REFORMA TION. i 73 

He was not permitted to remain, however, in his peaceful 
seclusion. His presence was needed elsewhere. The work of 
the Reformation missed his cool head, ripe judgment, and ju- 
dicious counsels. A good cause can be ruined by rushing on 
too fast, as well as by moving too slowly. Carlstadt and others 
caused tumults in Saxony by rash and inconsiderate proceedings 
that tended to mar the beauty of the work, and hinder its safety. 
Without consulting his wise protector, Frederick, Elector of 
Saxony, and therefore without his consent, he left the Wartburg, 
and suddenly appeared in Wittenberg. It was high time. It 
needed all his powerful influence to quiet the unwise agitation. 
But by a series of earnest and well directed sermons, he suc- 
ceeded, and the progress of the Reformation continued as before, 
steadily moving forward. 

In the meantime, the principles of the Preformation spread 
rapidly. Luther's labors were herculean. The number of 
books, large and small, which lie wrote, was almost incredible. 
Every where they were read with avidity. Many members of 
the monastic orders had become so disgusted with the corruption 
that existed in the monasteries, that they could no longer endure 
the vile practices that prevailed, and they seconded with great 
zeal, the efforts of Luther to parity them. Every where, too, 
among the people, the Reformation was hailed with joy, as di- 
minishing the exorbitant power of the hierarchy, purifying the 
character of the clergy, making them more faithful to the duties 
of the instruction of the people, and the proper care of souls, 
and in every respect providing for the congregations more script- 
ural doctrine, and sounder religion. The world was waiting 
for the revival of Christianity, almost with the same spiritual 
hunger with which it waited for the birth of Christianity. The 
place was ready for the right man, the man of God's right hand. 
He was wanted and he came. God sent the right man for the 
right place. 



F74 HISTORICAL SKE TCII OF THE RE FORM A TION. 

Several Diets of the Empire were held in succession, one at 
Nuremburg in 1524, at which the papal legate insisted upon the 
execution of the Edict of Worms, but as the friends of the Re- 
formation were in the majority, he did not succeed in his pur- 
pose. Another was held at Spires in 1526, at which it was at 
first feared that the Romish party would succeed in having very 
stringent measures adopted for the enforcement of the Edict of 
Worms, but which finally resulted in the adoption of a decree 
that "each State should act in matters relating to the Edict of 
Worms so as to be able to render a good account to God, and 
to the Emperor. 1 ' Of course, this was a victory on the side of 
the Reformation. 

The Reformation had made such progress in a number of the 
States of Germany, that the Churches could now be reorganized, 
and brought under a more healthy constitution and discipline. 
They were rescued from the jurisdiction of the Pope, and con- 
stituted as State Churches, with a Constitution of their own, and 
an order of government and discipline. Luther, Melanchthon, 
and others were appointed to make a thorough visitation of the 
Churches and schools to correct abuses, admonish the clergy, 
instruct teachers of the schools, supply vacancies, and in general, 
to improve and elevate the character of the Churches. The 
gloomy experience which Luther thus acquired of the incredible 
ignorance of the people and their teachers, led him to prepare his 
two Catechisms in 1529, namely, his Larger and Smaller Cate- 
chism, the same that we now have, and use in our Churches. 

Whilst such was the successful progress of the Reformation 
in Saxony, Hessen, Schleswig, Holstein, Silesia, Prussia, and 
other States and Cities, those who lived in such States as were 
governed by Romish members of the Diet, suffered the severest 
persecution. Particularly, Duke George of Saxony, took the lead 
in persecuting his subjects in his effort to enforce the Edict of 
Worms. "He imprisoned, scourged, and banished Luther's ad- 



HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE RE FOR MA TION. 175 

herents, and in 1521, had a bookseller, who sold Luther's works, 
beheaded. Persecution raged most in the low countries, ihe 
hereditary territories of the Emperor, not connected with the 
German empire (where really the first martyrs' blood was shed) 
but also in the Austrian domains, in Bavaria, and in the territory 
of the Swabian league. The peasants' war of 1525, added fuel 
to the persecutions. Under pretence of punishing the insurgents, 
the executioners went through the land, and along with the guilty, 
put to death many who were innocent of every crime but adher- 
ence to the Gospel. In 1527 and 28 a church visitation was in- 
stituted in Austria, similar to that in Saxony, but for the purpose 
of detecting and punishing heretics. In Bavaria the public roads 
were guarded to prevent preachers from going abroad into other 
countries ; those caught were first fined, then drowned and burned 
in large numbers. 

"The first martyrs were two young Augustine monks, at Ant- 
werp, Henry Voes and John JEsh, whose heroic sufferings (1523) 
Luther celebrated in a beautiful hymn ("Ein rieues Lied wir 
heben an.'') Their example was followed by Lampert Thorn, 
the prior of the monastery, who was suffocated in prison. The 
same year George Buchfueher was burnt in Hungary, and dur- 
ing the next year, a large number of scaffolds and stakes were 
erected for Protestants, in Austria, Bavaria, and Swabia. The 
most notable of these was Casper Tauber, who was beheaded 
and burnt in Vienna. Instead of the recantation he was expected 
to announce, he bore powerful testimony from the pulpit in favor 
of evangelical truth. Among later martyrs, Leonard Keener 
(Kaiser) held a distinguished place. Impelled by filial love to 
visit his dying father in Passau, he perished there at the stake, 
with joyful courage, August 16, 1527. A few months previously, 
George Carpentarius, an ecclesiastic, had obtained the honor 
of martyrdom at Munich. The Swabian league, after the recess 
of Spires, revived its cruel order for the extermination of all who 



176 HISTORICAL SKE TCH OF THE REFORM A TION. 

held evangelical views. In 1527 the Bishop of Constance had 
John Hueglin (Heuglin) burnt alive as an opposer of holy 
mother Church. The Elector of Mayence summoned the Ca- 
thedral preacher of Halle, George Winkler, to Anschaffenburg 
for having administered the communion under both forms. Wink- 
ler vindicated himself, and was acquitted, but was murdered on 
his way home. This led Luther to write his "Trcestungen an 
die Christen zu Halle ueber den Tod ihres Predigers." In Colog- 
ne, on Sept. 28, 1529, Adolf Clarenbach and Peter Flysteden 
were honored with martyrdom, and the joy and steadfastness 
of their faith shone forth amid the flames. In Northern Ger- 
many no blood was shed, but Duke George drove those who 
confessed the evangelical faith out of the land with scourges. 
The Elector Joachim von Brandenburg and his states resolved, 
1527, zealously to maintain Romish doctrines. Nevertheless 
the Gospel took continually deeper root in his territory ; and his 
own wife, Elisabeth, secretly read and admired Luther's writ- 
ings, and in her private chamber even received the Lord's Sup- 
per according to the Lutheran mode. But she was betrayed, and 
the elector raged and threatened to imprison the offender. Dis- 
guised as a peasant, she fled to her relative, the Elector of 
Saxony." * 

It became more and more evident that the papal party, insti- 
gated by the Pope, were determined to resort to violent meas- 
ures. They were preparing to make war upon the Princes and 
States that had adopted the Reformation. They had bound 
themselves to fall upon Saxony and Hessen, exterminate the 
Reformation, and divide their territory among themselves. It 
became necessary, therefore, for the Lutherans to deliberate upon 
the means of defence. Several of the Princes met for this pur- 
pose, and formed a sort of alliance, pledging themselves to sus- 



*) Kurtz's Church History. 



HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE RE FORMA TION. j 77 

tain each other, in case they should be attacked by the forces of 
their adversaries. 

A very important Diet was held at Spires in 1529. The 
Emperor, who had previously had his hands full with commo- 
tions and troubles in his empire, having settled them in some 
measure, was now free to give more attention to the religious 
questions that agitated Germany. He was not himself at this Diet, 
however, which was presided over by his brother Ferdinand. 
At this Diet of Spires the Roman party attended in large numbers, 
and were in the majority. They re-affirmed the Edict of Worms, 
and passed a decreee forbidding any innovations in doctrine or 
practice, the Romish mass was to be held in all the churches, 
and the jurisdiction and revenues of the papal Bishops, were to 
be every where restored. This is well called "the death sen- 
tence of the Reformation. 11 The friends of the Reformation re- 
monstrated in vain against this unjust decree. All their argu- 
ments and representations produced no effect upon the minds 
of their adversaries. They then joined in drawing up, and 
signing, a solemn Protest against this tyrannical decree, and ap- 
pealed to the Emperor, and to a future General Gouncil. From 
this protest all who opposed the superstitious communion of the 
Church of Rome, were called Protestants. The Romanists de- 
creed, the Lutherans protested. 

The Protestants immediately sent a commission to the Em- 
peror who was on his way from Spain to Italy, to acquaint him 
w T ith their proceedings. He became greatly irritated at the 
spirit and firmness which the commission displayed. He had 
them apprehended and put in prison for several days. When 
the Protestant Princes heard of this violent procedure, they knew 
that evil was intended against them. They therefore consulted 
at several meetings held at Nuremburg, Smalcald, and other 
places, as to the best course to pursue in the emergency. 

The Emperor Charles V. after an absence of nine years from 

12. 



178 HISTORICAL SKE TCH OF THE RE FOR MA TION. 

Germany, promised to attend in person a Diet to be held at 
Augsburg in 1530. Accompanied by the papal legate Gampegius, 
he entered the city of Augsburg, in great pomp on the loth of 
June 1530. The Diet was opened on June 20th. The question 
of the Reformation was first taken up. At the request of the 
Emperor, the Lutherans had prepared a statement of the doc- 
trines they held. Some articles that Luther had drawn up at 
Torgau, were made the basis of this statement of the articles of 
their faith. They were very carefully elaborated by Melanchthon, 
on consultation with Luther, who remained at Goburg, a short 
distance from Augsburg. On the 25th of June, 1530, the Diet 
was assembled to hear them. Two copies were prepared, one in 
German, and the other in Latin. The two chancellors of the 
Elector of Saxony, Dr. Baier, and Dr. Brueck stood forth, each 
with a copy in his hand. The Emperor desired the Latin copy 
to be read. But the Elector interposed by saying ; "We are in 
Germany, your majesty, and I hope you will permit us to use 
the German language, on German soil." The Emperor there- 
upon consented. Dr. Baier then read the German copy in a 
tone of voice so clear and loud, that he was heard, not only in 
the hall, but in the court yard beneath. It made a very favor- 
able impression upon the Princes assembled, confirmed the 
Protestants, and allayed the prejudices of those who had not 
rightly understood their doctrines. This important paper is 
since called the Augsburg Confession, and has always been the 
Confession of the Lutheran Church. It is a noble Confession. 
It has stood the test of centuries. It was the Confession of a 
united Protestantism. It would strengthen Protestantism im- 
measurably if it were now as then, the Confession of the whole 
Protestant world. Rome boasts of a united Romanism — united 
in error. On the Augsburg Confession, Protestantism would 
now as then, be united in truth. May God speed the day ! 
During all this time the Reformation was extending itself in 



HISTORICAL SK E TCH OF THE RE FORMA TION. 179 

every direction. In Sweden it spread with wonderful rapidity, 
and the papal empire was in a short time, wholly overturned. 
The same is true of Denmark. In Switzerland, by the labors 
of Zwinglius and others, the Reformation obtained firm hold in 
many of the Cantons. In a part of France, too, particularly as 
the result of the labors of Calvin, the Reformation gained power 
and influence. The doctrines of Luther, too, made many friends 
in Spain, Hungary, Bohemia, Britain, Poland, and the Nether- 
lands. In England, by the labors of Cranmer in consultation 
with Melanchthon, Protestantism became the State Church of 
the country. 

Things had now come to a crisis. The Reformation had as- 
sumed such proportions, that it ought to have been recognized 
as a fact accomplished. Those Princes, Churches, and States 
that had renounced the doctrines of the Church of Rome, and 
thrown off the jurisdiction of the Pope, ought to have been per- 
mitted to do so in peace, and remain unmolested. But this did 
not suit the despotic genius, and sanguinary zeal of the court of 
Rome. Nothing but absolute submission to the Romish hier- 
archy w T ould satisfy the Pope, and his haughty advisers. On the 
15th November 1530, a severe decree was issued by the Emperor 
from the Diet of Augsburg extolling the papal religion, adding 
new decrees to the Edict of Worms, censuring all the changes in 
doctrine and worship which the Protestants had made, and per- 
emptorily ordering the Princes, States, and Cities that had thrown 
off the papal yoke, to return to their allegiance to Rome, on pain 
of incurring the vengeance of the Emperor, as the patron and 
protector of the Church. * 

Things now looked very serious. The Protestants felt that 
they must either surrender every thing gained, or fight in self- 
defence. In order to be prepared, they formed a solemn alliance 

*) Mosheim's Eccles. Hist. 

12* 



j8o HISTORICAL SKE TCH OF THE REFORMA TION. 

at Smaleald in 1531. During several succeeding years, many 
leagues, alliances, conferences,. and interviews of various kinds 
were held) and carried on, with a view to a final adjustment of 
the difficulties. As the Turks threatened all Europe, the Em- 
peror's attention and army were so fully occupied by that danger, 
that he was unable to- carry out his purpose against the Protest- 
ants, as he too greatly needed their help against the common 
enemy. But the long threatened war finally came. 

Before, however, it burst forth, Luther who had all along op- 
posed all resort to carnal weapons, peacefully breathed his last, 
and went to his rest. He died at Eisleben, February 18, 1546, 
at the age of 63 years. He had for some time suffered great 
bodily pains, and his strength was much prostrated. He died 
surrounded by many kind friends, but away from his own home 
and family, who were unable to reach him in time to witness 
his last hours. Thus died in peace, a good and great man. 
His is one of the names that will never perish. So long as a 
heart exists, that beats in response to truth and liberty, his name, 
and character, and work will be held in grateful remembrance. 
He is one of the world's greatest benefactors. The effort to 
abuse his character, vilify his motives, and censure his work, 
only recoils upon the heads of those who make it. Despotism 
and untruth both in Church and State, necessarily hate a man 
so sincere in his truth, and so opposed to all tyranny as Luther. 
But as he passed safely through all the slander of his bitter 
enemies whilst living, so his character cannot be. sullied by their 
fierce defamation since he is dead. 

The long dreaded war commenced. Charles, having gained 
over young Duke Maurice of Saxony, issued under date of June 
20, 1546, a ban edict against the Landgrave Philip, and the 
Elector John Frederick, as vassals who had- violated their duty 
and their oath. Both armies were in the field, but winter came, 
on without their coming to a battle. The Landgrave and the 



HISTORICAL SKE TCH OF THE RE FORMA TION. 181 

Elector retired to their countries. The whole region of the 
Danube was exposed to the Emperor. One city after another 
was forced to capitulate, on more or less severe terms. 

On the Elbe, John Frederick entered Thuringia in Dec. 1546. 
At Muehlberg- he was overtaken by the Emperor, his troops de- 
feated, and himself taken prisoner, April 24, 1547. Sentence of 
death was pronounced upon him as a rebel and heretic. It 
was changed to imprisonment for life on condition that he 
would surrender his electoral dignity, give up his fortress, and 
transfer his domains to Duke Maurice. The Landgrave Philip, 
was filled with dismay when he heard of the surrender of the 
Elector, and being unable to resist the army of the Emperor, he 
too was compelled to surrender. His son-in-law, Maurice, in- 
terceded for his life. But he was compelled to prostrate himself 
before the Emperor, in abject submission, demolish kis for- 
tresses, give up his arms, and was thrown into prison. 

The cause of the Reformation seemed in an extremely gloomy 
and discouraging condition. The Emperor took advantage of 
the depressed state of their affairs, to have a formulary of faith 
drawn up, called the Interim,, and imposed it upon the Protest- 
ant Churches. It professed to make some concessions in behalf 
-of sound doctrine, but its concessions were deceptive, and the 
•errors in faith and practice which it retained were positive. Its 
acceptance by the Churches, was the result of violence. The 
threats of the Emperor forced them to adopt it. The state of the 
Protestant Churches was sad, and the prospect for the future, 
gloomy indeed. 

But deliverance came from a quarter that was as prompt, as 
at was unexpected. Philip Landgrave of Hesse, whom the Em- 
peror kept in prison, was Duke Maurice's father-in-law. He 
demanded his father-in-law's release from prison without suc- 
cess. His fiery temper would not brook the denial of his demand. 
As his treachery to the Protestant cause brought it into its preseni 



i82 HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE REFORMATION. 

calamitous condition, so in revenge for the insult offered to him 
by the Emperor, by denying his demand for his father-in-law's 
release from prison, he rescued it from its peril. 

He took his measures with great secrecy and skill. He formed 
a secret "alliance with the King of France, and several of the 
German Princes for the maintenance of the rights and liberties 
of the empire. Encouraged by this respectable confederacy, the 
active Saxon led a powerful army against the Emperor in 1552, 
with such astonishing valor and rapidity, that he surprized 
Charles at Innspruck, where he lay with a small force in the 
utmost security, and without the least apprehension of danger. 
This unforeseen event alarmed and dejected the Emperor to such 
a degree, that he was willing to make peace on almost any con- 
ditions, and consequently, he concluded at Passau, the famous 
treaty of Pacification, with the Protestants," which resulted in 
the termination at Augsburg, in 1555, of "those deplorable scenes 
of bloodshed, desolation, and discord, that had so long afflicted 
both Church and State, by that religious peace, as it is commonly 
called, which secured to the Protestants, the free exercise of their 
religion, and established this inestimable liberty upon the firmest 
foundations." * 

Such is a rapid sketch of that great event in history known as 
the Lutheran Reformation. In order to compress it into a single 
discourse, I have been compelled to condense the statement of 
that history into the smallest possible space. The principal facts 
of that history have been, however, so clearly stated, that my 
hearers have a pretty fair bird's-eye view of that wonderful 
scene upon the world's theatre. I have only time for a very 
few brief remarks in conclusion. 

1. God's hand was in it. Nothing is clearer than this. The 
evil was too great, and the enemies of the Reformation were too 



*) Mosheiin's Ec.cles. History. 



HISTORICAL SKE TCH OF THE REFORMA TION. 183 

many and strong, for human power to prevail against them. If 
in regard to any past event of history, we are compelled to say, 
"It was not of man but of God 11 , it must be said of this. 

2. It rescued the true faith. Christian faith was corrupted. 
The faith of Christ was imperilled. The corruption was at the 
root. It was not a mere question of outward ceremonies and 
forms. It was a question of faith, of principle, of doctrine. It 
rescued the true faith from the errors that had corrupted it. It 
restored the true faith to the Church. We now have it pure 
and true. In the Augsburg Confession it was then formulated, 
and in it, it is now purely confessed by the Church. 

3. It established the true Church. True faith makes a true 
Church. The Church is not true when its faith is not true. All 
depends upon the faith. There may be Pope, and Bishops, and 
priests, and an imposing ritual, but if the faith confessed is false, 
all passes for nothing, and the Church is false. Mahommedism 
has its Caliph, the officers of the mosque, and its form of wor- 
ship, but because its faith is false, it is a false Church. Mor- 
mon ism has its prophet, its elders, and its worship, but its de- 
testable doctrines make it a false Church. True doctrines make 
a true Church. Age does not make it. The Pope does not 
make it. Bishops and priests do not make it. Unity in error 
does not make it. Much stress is laid on this by Jesuit priests. 
Because they are united in their errors, and idolatrous worship, 
they claim to be the true Church. But having the same false 
doctrine, and the same hierarchical structure, and the same 
form of superstitious worship, in all ages, and in all lands, do 
not make it. Corrupt doctrines make a corrupt Church. In 
order to be the true Church, we must have the true faith. The 
Church cannot be the true Church that has not the true faith. 
The Church of Rome was the true Church when Paul was its 
pastor, and when it believed what Paul taught it. But when it 
renounced Paul's faith, and anathematized those that hold it a^ 



T84 HISTORICAL SKE TCH OF THE REFORM A TION. 

the Popes have done, and still do, it has fallen from the true 
faith, and it is no longer the true Church. The Reformation 
raised the Church from its fallen state. It corrected its false 
faith, and restored its corrupted worship, and we have now the 
true faith, and the true worship, in the true Church. 

4. It delivered the Church from intolerable despotism. The 
papacy pressed with its iron heel on human souls. It was, and 
it still is, an intolerable despotism. No man under its tyran- 
nical rule, could say that his soul was his own. Its whole his- 
tory is a record of oppression and cruelty. The Popes were 
"lords over God's heritage," as St. Peter distinctly forbade any 
persons to be. And they were haughty lords. Their's was in- 
satiable ambition. They had their foot on the necks of men, 
and they kept it there. They ruled the Church with a rod of 
iron. But blessed be God, the Reformation took that rod out of 
their hands. With impotent malice, they still grasp after it, 
but it is out of their reach. May it remain out of their reach 
forever ! 

5. It gave liberty to the nations. The world owes more to 
the Reformation than the deliverance of the Church from eccle- 
siastical oppression. It owes to it its civil liberty as well. In- 
deed, it broke the power of an unmitigated despotism that held 
every thing in bondage. When its heavy heel was taken off, 
every thing bounded upward. We feel it in all departments of 
human life. The liberties of America, the mild constitutional 
monarchy of England, the progress of free institutions all over 
Europe, and the breaking up of the temporal power of the Pope 
itself, in Italy, are owing to its direct influence. And even the 
liberation of serfdom in Russia, and the wresting of fierce des- 
potic power from the bloody Turk, by the force of the civilization 
of the age, which is not Romish, but Protestant civilization, are 
some of the remote and gradually accumulating benefits accru- 
ing to the world from the Reformation of the 16th century. 



HISTORICAL SKE TCH OF THE REFORM A TION. 185 

Such gradual crumbling to pieces of heavy yokes, and such grad- 
ual lightening of oppressive burdens, by the ever widening civili- 
zation of this Protestant age, were not possible under Rome's 
despotic rule, before the era of the Reformation. It was the 
Reformation that inaugurated this civilization, and started this 
ever extending influence in behalf of freedom, and it is felt even 
in the remote and savage nations of the earth. It is working 
still, and will always continue to work.' Its beneficial influence 
is more and more felt continually. No event that ever trans- 
pired since the birth of Christ, is of more importance to the 
happiness of the world, than it is. Well may we celebrate it 
with anthems of hearty praise and thanksgiving to God for its 
inestimable blessings. 



X52-**^ 


































■\* 






^ \ 



,5 ^ 



^, v* 






V 



- A^ 









*w* 



v v 










Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. _.. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: April 2005 

%*' X PreservationTechnologies - 

A WORLD LEADER .M PAPER PRE8EBVAT.ON 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



^0 




















\ 




















% 









V, 






^ 









-%. 















